(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The Impact of Boston-Area Colleges and Universities on the Local Economy"

the 

Economic Impact 
of Colleges & Universities 

on the 
Boston Area 



o 



Q 



J^Q^ BOSTON 



A Study Sponsored By 
Boston College 
Boston University 
Brandeis University 
Harvard University 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology i 
Northeastern University I 
Tufts University ' 
University of Massachusetts— Boston 




THE IMPACT OF BOSTON-AREA COLLEGES AND 
UNIVERSITIES ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY 



Prepared by the SDL Systems Research Group 
February, 19 7 4 

Boston New York Washington Toronto Ottawa Montreal 



HO . 
XL 



For additional copies of this report, 
or of its Summary version, please 
contact Charles Smith, Vice President, 
Boston University, 881 Commonwealth Avenue, 
Boston, Massachusetts 02215. 
617/353-4550 



Northeastern University 

360 HUNTINGTON AVENUE 
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02I15 



Office of the President 

October 19, 1972 



Mr. George Mowbray 
Director 

Higher Education Systems 
SDL Systems Research Group 
111 Avenue Road 
Toronto, Canada M5R 3J8 

Dear Mr. Mowbray: 

This letter will confirm our arrangements for you to make a study 
of the impact of the Boston-area colleges and universities on the local 
economy sponsored by the eight major universities of this area — Boston 
College, Boston University, Brandeis University, Harvard University, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, Tufts 
University, and University of Massachusetts in Boston. We feel that 
it is important for you as an outside organization to carefully examine 
our institutions from this viewpoint and report back to us. 

Higher education has become widely accepted in our society as 
a source of cultural and social benefits; much of Boston's vitality can 
be traced to its long involvement in higher education. 

Yet a college or university is more than just an educational in- 
stitution. It is also a major employer, builder, purchaser, financial 
agency, and in general a contributor to the economy of its local com- 
munity and the surrounding region. 

In Boston, as elsewhere, the inflation of recent years has 
squeezed the budgets of many institutions, including those in education. 
Throughout the same period, municipal finances have also been strained 
by rising needs and restricted revenues. Questions thus arise from time 



Mr. George Mowbray 



- 2 - 



October 19 , 1972 



to time as to whether higher education is carrying its proper weight 
in fiscal terms. Under current conditions, property tax exemptions 
tend to become more highly visible as a form of public support edu- 
cation. 

On the other hand, the immediate economic contributions which 
colleges and universities make to the communite are not widely rec- 
ognized. For this reason we are commissioning you to this study. 
Representatives from each of our institutions will provide you with 
the information which you need. This data gathering will be coordinated 
by Charles W. Smith, Vice President for Finance at Boston University, 
and you will report from time to time to a committee of the presidents. 



We hope that the entire report will be ready for release early in 

1974. 




Asa S. Knowles 
President 



ASK:gdo 




February 26, 19 7 4 
Tb: 

J. Donald Monan, S. J. 
Boston College 

John R. Silber 
Boston University 

Marver H. Bernstein 
Brandeis University 

Derek C. Bok 
Harvard University 



Jerome B. Wiesner 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Asa S. Knowles 
Northeastern University 

Burton C. Hallowell 
Tufts University 

Robert C. Wood 

University of Massachusetts 



Gentlemen : 

The SDL Systems Research Group has the honor to transmit to 
you this study of the impact of colleges and universities on 
the economy of metropolitan Boston. It is being formally 
transmitted to you for release to the public, in your capacity 
as its committee of sponsoring university presidents. 

As the work on this project progressed, a few major observa- 
tions gradually came into focus. 

The most significant finding of the study is the importance of 
higher education's monetary expenditures in the economy of 
Greater Boston. Sixty-five colleges and universities in metro- 
politan Boston, through their daily operations, students, visi- 
tors, and construction programs, create annual outlays of $1.3 
billion. More than half of this money comes from sources out- 
side of the Boston area, and most of it is paid out to residents 
and business firms within the area. This kind of economic activ- 
ity is essential for regional prosperity. Business within a 
region must serve outside customers in order to earn the money 
that brings prosperity within the region. 



1 1 1 Avenue Road 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5R 3J8 

Telephone; (416) 964-841 1 



Education has become one of the largest, if not the largest, 
industries in the Boston area, and this has proved to be very 
profitable to other Boston industries. The expenditures by 
the universities themselves and by their faculties, students, 
and guests have become vital elements in the regional economy. 

Despite the many economic benefits for the community at large, 
the governments of the host cities do not receive any sub- 
stantial fiscal benefits from the income generated by the 
colleges and universities. This is because the prevailing 
tax structure makes the cities heavily dependent upon real 
estate taxes, and the money flows generated by higher educa- 
tion do not yield commensurately increased revenue for the 
host city as community income increases. Because of the state 
income tax and other state taxes, Massachusetts, rather than 
the City of Boston and other cities, is the primary benefic- 
iary from the college and university ^'alary payments and busi- 
ness purchases. This situation can be cited as an argument 
for state aid to the cities to compensate them for the pror- 
perty tax exemptions granted to colleges and universities, 
which make up one of the largest industries in the community. 

We would also like to acknowledge the help of many people in 
the compilation of the facts that underly the study, which is 
for the most part based on original research in the form of 
eighteen surveys of faculty, staff, students, and visitors. 
We thank the respondents for their cooperation. 

Under the chairmanship of Charles W. Smith, Vice President for 
Finance of Boston University, a steering committee supported 
the work. Members were: John G. Bolin, John Danahy , and 
John R. Smith, Boston College; Lester G. Loomis and Laurence J. 
Higgins , Brandeis University; Celeste Arden and David Davis, 
Harvard University; John A. Currie , Paul V. Cusick, and Walter 
L. Milne, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Loring M. 
Thompson, Northeastern University; John A. Dunn, Jr. and Peter 
Fitzrandolph , Tufts University; Philip Gartenberg, Franklyn W. 
Phillips, and Joan C. Tonn, The University of Massachusetts. 
Virginia L. Tierney represented Boston University and acted as 
chief project coordinator for the committee. Frances P. Doonan 
was our secretary. 

Specific contributions of other individuals to the project are 
noted in parts of the report. But the contribution to data 
processing and interpretation made by Sylvia Fleisch of Boston 
University's Computing Center deserves special acknowledgement. 



Although this study was sponsored by the universities , 
responsibility for its objectivity and accuracy rests 
solely with the SDL Systems Research Group. Consultants 
of that group who assisted included Michele McGinn and 
Steve Russell; their assistance, on both technical 
matters and matters of judgment, is here acknowledged. 
The report has been edited by Florence Trefethen of 
Lexington, Massachusetts. 



Yours sincerely, 



George Mowbray 
Project Director 




CONTENTS 



I OVERVIEW 2 

II UNIVERSITY OPERATING REVENUES 11 

III UNIVERSITY OPERATING EXPENDITURES 14 

IV THE IMPACT OF INSTITUTIONAL PURCHASES 16 

V THE IMPACT OF UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION 20 

VI UNIVERSITIES AND THE FINANCIAL COMMUNITY 22 

VII EXPENDITURES BY FACULTY AND STAFF 25 

VIII EXPENDITURES BY STUDENTS 29 

IX EXPENDITURES BY CAMPUS VISITORS 34 

X TAX EXEMPTIONS AND OFFSETS 39 

XI THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE OTHER 5 7 

METRO BOSTON COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES i|8 

Appendix A A History of the Boston 

Educational Community 50 

Appendix B Methodology 84 



I 

OVERVIEW 



The 65 colleges and universities in the official metro 
Boston area are directly responsible for about $1.3 billion 
in annual expenditures . On the basis of surveys conducted 
independently as part of this economic impact study , Boston 
emerges as the leading center of knowledge in The United 
States -- with m.ore academically based employment and more 
students in relation to population than any other major 
metropolitan area. 

The analysis"*" of this report is primarily focused on 
the cash-flow impact of eight universities -- Boston College, 
Boston University, Brandeis , Harvard, M.I.T., Northeastern, 
Tufts, and the University of Massachusetts at Boston. It is 
supplem.ented with a more general review of the other 5 7 
institutions of higher learning in the area. The area of 
impact is The Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as 
defined by the U.S. Census. 

l^Jhile universities are not often thought of as 
businesses , they have a remarkable impact on their local and 
state economies — ^s employers , purchasers , drawing points 
for students and visitors, and developers who spend sums on 
construction. They and their faculties, staffs, and students 
are an integral part of the area's financial dynamics -- 
holding cash , borrowing and lending money , and paying taxes . 
As tax-exempt institutions, however, they do not have to pay 
local property taxes , a privilege granted by state legisla- 
tion for the benefit of the entire state, but representing 
fiscal support from local taxpayers . 

Hard pressed municipalities are naturally tempted to 
try to secure payments in lieu of taxes from educational 
institutions as some compensation for the revenues lost to 
local governments . But the principal fiscal element m the 
situation is probably the taxes the Commonwealth saves by 
not having to underwrite a major postsecondary educational 
sector. This consideration has encouraged numerous 



The study's methodology was based in part on John 
Caffrey and Herbert H. Isaacs, Estimating the Impact of a 
College or University on the Local Economy (Washington , 
American Council on Education, 19 71). See Appendix B for 
further details on the aspects of university impact covered 
in this study, and for other methodological issues. 



2. 



suggestions of ways in which the Commonwealth might spread 
the impact of municipal tax exemptions more equitably, 
perhaps through some form of compensation to those munici- 
palities most directly affected. 

The direct flows of funds associated with the colleges 
and universities of metro Boston, the main subject of this 
study, are only part of the total impact force. These 
institutions have consistently and conspicuously been a 
major thrust in the intellectual and socio-economic process 
in New England. The Boston knowledge center has not only 
provided thousands of jobs in education, but has been the 
source of many more through the creativity of its faculty 
and graduates. One need only look at Route 12 8 with its 
developments related to the application of engineering 
science, to universities' contributions to health care 
delivery and research, and their role in music and the arts. 
The educational community has played a leading role in the 
spectacular growth of service industries and high-technology 
business in New England, thereby helping to offset the long- 
term decline in the region's manufacturing sector. 

A. BOSTON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION IS A $1.3 BILLION 
ANNUAL ENTERPRISE . 

The 6 5 metro Boston colleges and universities, their 
employees, students, and visitors, together spend $1.3 
billion a year — most of it in the metro Boston area. (See 
Figure 1.) The data refer to the study year 19 72. 

1. A little over 69% of the $1.3 billion consists of 
the $89 7 million in institutional operating accounts, 2.9% 
of the $30.6 billion gross domestic product of the Common- 
wealth. (See Table 1.) 

2. Students are an important economic factor, 
representing nearly 20% of the total university impact on 
the business of the area. 

3. Visitors spend $20 million a year in metro Boston, 

4. Construction outlays amount to $120 m.illion a 
year at current levels. 



3. 



Table 1 

METRO BOSTON COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY EXPENDITURES, 1972 

(.5 millions; 



8 5 7 Other Total 

Expenditure Type Universities Local Colleges for 6 5 



Operations 
Students 
Visitors 
Construction 



$696 . 9 
155 .6 
15 .5 
100 .0 



$200 . 
100 .0 
4.5 
20 . 



$896 .9 
255 .6 
20.0 
120 .0 



69 . 4 
19 . 8 
1.5 
9 . 3 



$968 .0 



$324.5 



$1,292.5 100.0 



Figure 1 

EXPENDITURES OF 6 5 METRO BOSTON 
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 1972 
TOTAL -- $1.3 BILLION 




Visitors 
$20 million 



4. 



B. 51% OF EXPENDITURES ARE FUNDED FROM 
OUTSIDE THt: BOSTON AREA. 



A look into the "sources" of this billion dollar 
annual outlay, discloses that about 51% of it comes from 
outside the metro Boston area. The $6 56 million cash inflow 
makes the educational community, in effect, a major local 
"export" industry.! (See Table 2). 



Table 2 



METRO BOSTON EDUCATIONAL MONEY INFLOWS, 19 72 

($ millions) 





8 


5 7 Other 


Total 


Inflow of Funds for 


Universities 


Local Colleges 


for 65 


Operations 


$385.2 


$ 60.0 


$445.2 


Students 


93.4 


37.0 


130 .4 


Visitors 


15 .5 


4.5 


20 .0 


Construction 


50 .0 


10 .0 


60.0 




$544.1 


$111.5 


$655.6 



1. Of the major universities' total operating revenues 
in 1972, 56% ($385 million) came from outside metro Boston. 
Most of the operating revenues came from out-of-state 
federal grants, student fees, and private gifts. The propor- 
tion is judged to be smaller for the other 57 institutions. 



This view has been expressed before. The following is 
a quotation from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, New 
England Business Review , April 196 5, p. 8. "In the long run 
it would appear that one of the keys to the state's economic 
growth is its education industry. Not only is it an export 
industry, but also an important source for the development of 
a highly trained labor force. Moreover, the presence of numbers 
of skilled engineers , research scientists , and able management 
consultants makes the intellectual climate attractive for 
highly skilled personnel from other regions as well as new 
firms." More recently, the Academy for Educational Development 
has recorded an analytic assumption that Massachusetts employ- 
ment in service industries will advance from 71% to 75% of 
the total labor force between 1968 and 1980, as compared with 
a decline from 29% to 2 5% for employment in commodity- 
producing industries. See Higher Education in Massachusetts 
(Boston, Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education, June, 
1973 ) , p. 203 . 



5 



2. In the eight universities, 60% of the students 
are non-local, many from out of state, and hence financed 
largely from non-local sources . The corresponding percent- 
age of non-local students for the other institutions is 27%. 

3. Visitors' expenditures are all compared on an out- 
of-area basis; they exclude any impact of visits by local 
residents . 

4. Construction funds have been allocated on the 
basis of 50% non-local funding. This is a conservative 
estimate, since the major universities (with the larger 
building programs) have 6 8% of their alumni living outside 
the metro area, half of them out of state. 



Figure 2 

INFLOW OF FUNDS TO BOSTON 
THROUGH 8 MAJOR UNIVERSITIES, 19 72 



Revenues -- $693.5 million Expenditures -- $696.9 million 




6. 



C. METRO BOSTON'S POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS GENERATE 



PURCHASES OF $317 MILLION A YEAR. 



The 6 5 colleges and universities have combined 
purchases totaling $317 million a year — 75% of it ($238 
million) in the metro Boston area. (This total excludes 
construction . ) 



D. LOCAL FACULTY, STAFF. AND ST UDENT PURCHASES 
TOTAL $43 3 MILLTOH AMUALLY . 

The combined purchases of the employees and students 
of the 6 5 schools approximate $49 3 million a year. 



E. THE UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 

TOGfcT^lKR ARE THE LA!^(5ESY tMPLOVfekS THE 

GREATER BOSTON AREA . 

The educational services sector is the largest in 
Boston (9.6% of the employed population), and represents a 
larger share of employment totals than in any other U.S. 
metro area, according to official Census data. As Table 3 
indicates , the educational services sector outranks all 
others in the Boston area in terms of the number of jobs 
provided. Here nearly twice as many people are working in 
education as in the labor-intensive construction industry. 
Furthermore, the educational services sector creates 
approximately 20% more employment than its closest rivals, 
the health services sector (itself partly made up of 
university personnel) and the sector covering financial, 
insurance , and real estate establishments . The 40,000 
employees of the 6 5 colleges and universities in the Boston 
area make up about 37% of~the total employed in educationaT 
services^ ( See Figure 3 . ) 



7 



Table 3 

COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT IN EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 



WITH OTHER ECONOMIC SECTORS - BOSTON 


SMSA, 


1970 








Number 


% 




Educational services-^ 


108 


,907 


9 . 


6 


Construction 


56 


,998 


5 . 





Metal industries and machinery 


4 8 


513 


4 . 


3 


Electrical machinery, equipment S supplies 


46 


,920 


4. 


1 


Motor vehicles and other transportation 










equipment 


23 


,035 


2 . 





Other durable goods 


35 


,133 


3. 


1 


Food and kindred products 


15 


,004 


1. 


3 


Textile mill and other fabricated textile 










products 


18 


,187 


1. 


6 


Printing, publishing and allied industries 


23 


,600 


2 . 


1 


Chemicals and allied products 


8 


,141 


. 


7 




35 


,96 3 


o • 


2 


Transportation 


37 


,158 


3 . 


3 


Communications , utilities 8 sanitary 










services 


37 


,759 


3. 


3 


Wholesale trade 


54 


,623 


4. 


8 


Food, bakery and dairy stores 


31 


,187 


2. 


7 


Eating and drinking places 


35 


'256 


3. 


1 


General merchandise retailing 


35 


,840 


3 . 


2 


Motor vehicles retailing 8 service stations 


15 


,76 5 


1. 


4 


Other retail trade 


65 


,886 


5 . 


8 


Finance, insurance £ real estate 


85 


,417 


7 . 


5 


Business and repair services 


41 


,457 


3 . 


6 


Personal services 


39 


,219 


3 . 


4 


Health services'^ 


87 


,267 


7. 


7 


Other professional S related services 


68 


,004 


6 . 





Public administration 


66 


,881 


5. 


9 


Other industries 


14 


j304 


1. 


3 


Total 


1 ,136 


,474 


100 . 






Postsecondary institutions represent 40,000, or 37%, 
of this total. In themselves they amount to 3,5% of 
1,136,474 total employment. 

Universities are heavily represented in health services 
employment . 



8. 



Figure 3 



METRO BOSTON LABOR FORCE IN 
SELECTED INDUSTRIES, 1970 



% of 
Labor 
Force 

10 T 



9 " 

8 

7 

6 " 

5 

4 

3 -• 

2 
1 



Education 
1^ 




Health 
7.7 



Finance 
etc . 

7.5 



Public 
Admin . 

5.9 



Construction 
5.0 



V_Colleges and 
Universities 



9. 



F. BOSTON'S EIGHT MAJOR UNIVERSITIES OWN ONLY A SMALL 



PART OF BOSTON'S LAND AREA. 



The eight major universities own only 2% of all land 
in Boston. This is a small part of the total and a small 
part of the U2% of Boston land that is tax-exempt. As Figure 
4 indicates , the eight universities ' land area holdings in 
Boston are but 1/17 as extensive as government-owned tax- 
exempt land, which accounts for 34% of Boston's land area. 



Figure 4 



THE TAX BASE OF LAND IN THE CITY OF BOSTON 



I I Subject to taxation 
Tax-exempt 





UNIVERSITY OPERATING REVENUES 



SUMMARY: Of the eight universities sponsoring 
this study, only one -- The University of 
Massachusetts -- is a public institution 
receiving state operating grants . The others 
are private institutions, relying mainly on 
varying proportions of student tuitions, 
gifts , endowments and federal research grants 
for their funding. Of the $694 million in operating 
revenues all eight universities received in 197 2, 
72.4% ($502 million) came from private sources. 
Furthermore, 56% ($385 million) of all operating 
revenues came from outside metro Boston. 



A. 



72.4% OF OPERATING REVENUE COMES FROM PRIVATE SOURCES. 



Table 4 summarizes the income sources of the eight 
major universities for the study year (1972).! 



Table 4 



TOTAL UNIVERSITY REVENUE, 1972 



Private Sources 
Student tuition and fees 
Private gifts & endowment 
Service programs 
Auxiliary enterprises 
Other sources^ 

Subtotal private 

Government Sources 
Federal 

Direct cost of projects 

Student aid 

Commonwealth of Mass. 

Operating grant to U. Mass 
Direct cost of projects 
Student aid (understated) ^ 

Local governments 

Subtotal government 



Revenue 
( $ million) 



185 
129 
73 
57 
56 



(502.1) 



(178.7) 
161.9 
16 . 8 

( 12.2) 
9.6 
2.1 
0.5 

0.5 
(191.4) 



% Total 



26 .8 
18.6 



10 
8 
8 



(V2.1+) 



(25.7) 
23.3 
2.4 

( 1.9) 
1.4 
. 3 
0.1 

0.1 
(27.6) 



Total operating revenue 



$693.5 



100.0 



The information for this table was taken from the federal 

11. 



Several of these data merit special attention: 

1. Slightly more than one-quarter (26.8%) of total 
revenue comes from students -- about the same as from the 
research and other funds from federal agencies . 

2. Private gifts and income from endowments are also 
a substantial source of income (18.6%). 

3. Although details are not shown in Table M- for 
each institution, the federal research funds and endowment 
income figures are heavily concentrated on Harvard and 
M.I.T. Conversely, the share of student fees in the revenue 
pattern is much higher, averaging 51.8%, for the six other 
institutions . 

4. The total "private" revenue contribution is 
stated in the table as $502.1 million, or 72.4% of the total 
revenues of the eight universities in 19 72. As footnote 2 
indicates, however, this is a slight overestim.ate because 
the "other sources" figure includes an amount for the 
recovery of indirect costs on government-sponsored research 
projects and other such programs. 

5. Government sources of revenue total $191.4 million 
plus the amount referred to above, or something in excess of 
2 7.6% of total university revenue. This money, except for 
the operating grant of $9.6 million to the University of 
Massachusetts , is made up largely of federal government 
expenditures on sponsored research projects , not subsidiza- 
tion of ordinary instructional processes in the institutions 
The other significant government item is student aid, 
totaling more than $20 million in 1972. 



(continued from page 11) 

HEGIS (Higher Education General Information Survey) report 
on university finances. 

2 

"Other sources" includes government funds categorized 
as recovery of indirect (overhead) costs on publicly spon- 
sored programs ($37 million). 

3 

Student aid excludes $5.1 million in scholarships and 
grants by the Conmionwealth to needy or handicapped students . 



B. 56% OF THE MAJOR UNIVERSITIES' REVE NUES COME FRO M 
OUTSIDE METRO BOS-tOM: — $585 MILLION TW 1972. 



A significant share of university private and public 
revenues , as shown in Table 5 , comes from sources outside 
metro Boston. Together, these outside sources total $385 
million and account for 55.5% of university operating 
revenue. The percentages note the bases of the allocation, 
which, though not thoroughly precise, represent a reason- 
able set of judgments. 



Table 5 



ES TIMA TED UNIVERSITY REVENUE FROM SOURCES 
OUTSIDE METkO SOS^ON, 1972 



From Outside % of Revenue 

Metro Boston Item 

Sources (5 millions) 

Private Sources 

Student tuition and fees 111.4 60 

Private gifts 8 endowment 64.5 50 

Other sources 28.1 50 



Subtotal private (204.0) (29.4) 
Government Sources 

Federal 175.1 98 
Commonwealth of Mass. 6.1 50 



Subtotal government (181.2) (26.1) 

Total from outside sources $385.2 55.5 



13. 



Ill 

UNIVERSITY OPERATING EXPENDITURES 



SUMMARY: The eight universities sponsoring 
this study spent a total of $696,861,000 in 
1972 to support their educational missions, a 
large operation by business standards. 
According to official reports submitted to 
the U.S. Office of Education, 73% of this 
total went into education and general expendi- 
tures , that is , towards carrying on the 
universities ' principal functions . 



A. THE MAJOR UNIVERSITIES SPEND $6 9 7 MILLION PER YEAR 
ON EDUCATION AND RELATED AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES . 

For the study year 1972, the eight universities' 
expenditures of $696,861,000 were allocated as shown in 
Table 6 . 



Table 6 



UNIVERSITY EXPENDITURES, 1972 
($ Millions) 



Category 



Amount 



% Total 



Education and general 

Instruction £ departmental 
research 

Maintenance £ operations 
Other expenditures 



$510 .5 



73 . 3 



39 3 .9 
41. 3 
75 . 3 



(56 .6) 
( 5.9) 
(10 .8) 



Student aid 



55 . 8 



8.0 



Major service programs 



68.9 



9 . 9 



Auxiliary enterprises 
Housing £ food 
Other 



38 . 3 
23.3 



61.6 



8.8 
( 5.5) 
( 3.3) 



$696 .8 



100 . 



14. 



B. INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH, AND OPERATIONS 
DIRECTLY SUPPORTING THOSE ACTIVITIES ACCOUNT FOR 
NEARLY THREE-QUARTERS OF ALL OPERATING EXPENDITURES . 

The $511 million spent for education and general 
expenditures in 1972 represents 73.3% of total operating 
expenditures. $394 million (56%) was spent for instruction 
and departmental research, and $41 million for the main- 
tenance and operation of the physical plant and other 
expenses to house those activities. 

C. 8% OF TOTAL OPERATING EXP ENDI TURES IS ALLOCATED 
TO STUDEHT"?^ 

In 1972, the eight universities spent $55.8 million 
on student aid, part of it supplied by the institutions 
themselves . 



D. THE UNIVERSITIES SPEND $6 2 MILLION ON AUXILIARY 
ENTERPRISE^ 

Food, housing, and other auxiliary enterprises 
accounted for $61.6 million in 1972, 9% of total operating 
expenditures. This kind of expenditure is offset, for the 
most part, by revenues from those enterprises. The figure 
represents a significant demand on the local economy for 
both supplies and labor. 



15. 



IV 

THE IMPACT OF INSTITUTIONAL PURCHASES 



SUMMARY: Three of every four dollars spent 
in purchases by the eight major universities 
are spent in the City of Boston or in the 
surrounding municipalities of the SMSA. 
These metro Boston purchases, in fact, rep- 
resent 30<: of every dollar of the universities' 
annual operating expenditures and total $211 
million a year at 19 72 rates. There is a 
wide variation among the several kinds of 
purchases in respect to their locale of ori- 
gin, but, in the aggregate, university 
buying is heavily concentrated in the Boston 
area . 



A. THE MAJOR UNIVERSITIES' PURCHASES IN THE BOSTON AREA 
TOTAL $211 MILLION ANNUALLY, 75% OF ALL THEIR 
PURCHASES . 

Out of their total operating expenditures of $6 9 7 
million, the major universities spend $282 million (42%) 
on purchases of supplies , materials , and equipment for 
current operations . This excludes any expenditures on their 
construction programs on capital account. Of the $2 82 
million in purchases in 1972, $211 million (75%) was spent 
in the metro Boston area. In other words, no less than 30<;: 
on every dollar of university operating expenditures goes 
directly into the Boston metro area. 



Table 7 



UNIVERSITY PURCHASES, 1972 



Area of Purchases 



Amount ($ Millions) 



% Total 



City of Boston 
Other SMSA localities 
Other parts of Mass. 
Out of state 



$ 72.3 
138 . 8 
13.2 
57.9 



25.6 
49. 2 
4.7 
20 . 5 



$282 .2 



100 .0 



16. 



B. THE HIGH VOLUME OF UNIVERSITY PURCHASES IN METRO 



BOSTON IS CONCENTRATED WITHIN CERTAIN MAJOR 



Purchase cATtSOkTES . 



Equipment 5 supplies, maintenance, and utilities account 
for $151 million (54%) of the eight universities' purchases, 
with another $62 million (22%) spent for "other" unspecified 
items. Except for equipment, half of which is purchased out 
of state, expenditures in all these categories are over- 
whelmingly concentrated in metro Boston. Table 8 summarizes 
the objects of purchase and the localities where purchases 
were reported to have been made in 1972 .-^ 

Some of the data displayed in Table 8 (purchases in 
1972) merit special attention: 

1. 7 8% of supplies, amounting to $42 million, came 
from metro Boston. 

2. Equipment purchases were much less likely to be 
local in origin, with 5 7% being procured from outside the 
metro area, the bulk of this from out of state. Metro 
Boston's share amounted to about $2 3 million. 



Neither purchasing records nor purchasing agents in 
most colleges and universities are reliable sources of infor 
mation on the actual sources of the goods bought for 
operations and construction. Thus, even a "sampling" of 
transactions is not a sure way of finding "facts." Univer- 
sity administrators are busy doing their jobs , not social 
research on the ultimate origins of what they are ordering 
or paying for. Typical metropolitan economic structures 
indicate that about half the items bought in a metropolitan 
area are likely to be produced (to a greater or lesser 
extent) in that area. The complex of materials, processing 
labor and equipment, and transportation, indicates an 
indeterminate solution for this problem. University records 
are thus not ideally suited to the extraction of this kind 
of information, and in some cases estimates were made on the 
basis of informed judgment by university and project 
personnel. Moreover, the place of purchase, as identified 
in primary records of the institution, may or may not be the 
location of the main "production" impact of the purchases. 



17. 



3. Almost all job printing was locally purchased -- 
91% from either Boston or the surrounding area. 

4. 81% of maintenance purchases for day-to-day 
operations of the universities came from the local area -- 
amounting to some $13 million. 

5. Although 91% of the travel expenditures are 
recorded as having been purchased locally, one can assume 
that, in fact, the bulk of this money was spent on travel 
outside the metro area. 

6 . Bookstore purchases and library acquisitions were 
largely (60%) made outside the state altogether. Slightly 
more than one-third (36%) were made in Boston and the 
surrounding localities . 

7. Utility service purchases were almost entirely 
from local suppliers (99%) for a total of $27 million. 

8. Food and food contract purchases were a sizeable 
portion (5.6%) of the universities' purchases; of the $16 
million, 88% or $14 million was placed with suppliers in 
Boston or the surrounding towns . 

9. The residual item of purchases not specified in 
other categories -- a total of $62 m.illion in 1972 -- was 
also largely local. About 90% was spent in the local area, 
one-third in Boston, the rest in the surrounding munici- 
palities . 

10. Within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, univer- 
sity purchases were heavily concentrated in Boston and other 
local areas of the SMSA. Only 4.7% of purchases are 
estimated to have been made in the state but outside the 
metro area. 



18. 



Table 8 

SUMMARY OF 19 72 INSTITUTIONAL PURCHASES 



Category of Purchases 


Location (values in $000) 






Boston 


Other 
Metro 


Other 
Mass . 


Out of 
State 


TOTAL 


%TOTAL 


Equipment 


% 


7,6 34 
14. 


2 


15 ,177 
28.2 


3 ,551 
6.6 


27,333 

50 .9 


5 3,69 5 
100 


.0 


19 


. 


Supplies 


% 


11,457 
21. 


4 


30 ,556 
57.0 


4,355 

8.1 


7 ,199 
13.4 


5 3,567 
100 


.0. 


19 


. 


Utilities 


% 


/ , 4 7 3 
27 . 


9 


19 ,333 

72.0 


14 
0.1 


9 

0.0 


2 5 ,8 29 
100 


.0 


9 


. 5 


Maintenance 


% 


b , 2 8 8 
36 . 


5 


7 ,716 
44 . 8 


620 
3.6 


2 ,606 
15.1 


17,2 30 
100 


.0 


6 


. 1 


Food 


% 


c c n c 

0,596 
35 . 


3 


8 ,440 
53.3 


143 
0.9 


1 ,658 
10 .5 


15 ,8 37 
100 


.0 


5 


. 6 


Travel 


% 


con 

4 . 


9 


11,222 

86 .0 


159 
1.2 


1,031 

7.9 


13,0 51 
100 


.0 


4 


. 6 


Telephone £ 
Communication 


% 


1 1 n o T 

4 , y z / 
39. 


9 


7 ,389 
59 . 8 


7 

0.1 


42 
. 3 


12 , 3b 
100 


.0 


4 


. 4 


Library 
Acquisitions 


Q, 
•& 


1 9 U Ll 
-L , Z H- H- 

12 . 


8 


2 ,076 
21.3 


230 
2.4 


6 ,193 
63.6 


Q 7 Ll '5 

100 


.0 


o 
o 


c 
> 


Printing 


% 


, ol4 
66 . 


1 


2 ,227 
25 . 3 


138 
1.6 


613 
7.0 


o n o 

o , / y Z 

100 


.0 


o 




. 1 


Bookstore 


% 


1,176 
21 . 


9 


1,054 
19 .6 


223 
4.1 


2 ,929 
54.4 


5,382 
100 


.0 


1 


.9 


Insurance 


% 


3 ,131 
82. 


1 


450 
11. 8 





232 
6.1 


3 ,813 
100 


.0 


1 


.4 


Other 


% 


16 ,918 
27 . 


3 


33,206 

53.6 


3 ,754 

6.1 


8 ,066 
13.0 


61,944 
100 


.0 


22 


.0 


TOTAL 




72,297 




138 ,846 


13 ,194 


57 ,911 


282, 248 




100 


.0 


% of TOTAL 




25 . 


6 


49 .2 


4.7 


20.5 


100 


.0 







19. 



V 

THE IMPACT OF UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION 



SUMMARY: Since 19 50, the eight major univer- 
sities of this study have spent $647 million 
on construction and had a backlog of work 
not yet completed at the end of 19 72 of about 
$75 million more. About 55% of the total 
already spent, or $356 million, has been 
spent in metro Boston. That percentage in- 
cludes virtually all of the labor costs , and 
represents a major direct addition to the 
employment level within the area economy. 

A. SINCE 1950, THE MAJOR UNIVERSITIES HAVE SPENT 
$647 MILLION ON BOSTON-AREA CONSTRUCTION . 

From a base of postwar building programs and a physi- 
cal plant at that time of roughly $100 million, the 
institutions in this study spent $70 million on construction 
in the 1950 's. After Sputnik (1957), the rate of construc- 
tion increased dramatically. In the 1960 's, the eight 
universities spent $330 million on construction. 

Between 1970 and the end of 1972, they added a further 
$246 million, with a backlog of work uncompleted at the end 
of the year of another $75 million or thereabouts. Exclud- 
ing this backlog, the total for the 22 years has been $647 
million -- a very large building program by New England 
standards . 



B. UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION HAS A POWERFUL IMPACT 
ON THE LOCAL eCOnT^HT: 

With minor exceptions , the cost of commercial-type 
construction of the kind that predominates in university 
building programs has long tended to be half labor and half 
materials or equipment . This old industry rule that 
buildings are half labor has persisted despite strenuous 
efforts to cut labor costs through various new approaches. 
While the construction industry has become much more 
efficient in its work over the years , it is still rather 
labor-intensive. A big building project therefore means many, 
local jobs, especially in the lesser skills. 

It is not accidental that job-creating programs in m.any 
areas emphasize construction of various kinds. Its high 



20. 



labor content guarantees direct employment effects on the 
local scene. This suggests that the $3 30 million the uni- 
versities spent on construction in the 1960 's (a period of 
otherwise relative stability in construction in the metro 
Boston area) must have had a profound effect upon the local 
economy. Local employment in construction rose by about 
20% in that period, whereas total employment rose by about 
17%. 



C. ABOUT 55% OF CONSTRUCTION OUTLAYS STAY 
IN THE METRO BOSTON ECONOMY l 

Investigations of the local construction industry 
indicate that 55% of construction outlays are directed 
towards locally supplied services and materials: 

1. Almost all labor costs of construction (half 
the cost of most projects) are a direct 
addition to the employment level in the local 
economy . ^ 

2. The "import" component of materials and 
equipment for local university construction 
is rather high: probably 90% of non-labor 
input is brought into the metro area. 
(Items such as installed scientific equip- 
ment, furniture, or art work are not considered 
here . ) 



D. POSTWAR CONSTRUCTION TO THE END OF 19 7 2 HAS MEANT 
$356 MILLION IN WAGES AND LOCAL PURCHASES . 

Since the major wave of postwar construction started 
in the 1950 's, the eight universities of the Boston area 
have allocated an estimated 55% of their $647 million in 
construction outlays, in effect, to local job creation and 
local material purchases . 

The university construction program contributes to the 
position of these institutions as one of the strongest 
forces for economic growth in the metro Boston area. 



VI 

UNIVERSITIES AND THE FINANCIAL COMMUNITY 



SUMMARY: Since the building and operating of 
a major university requires a large amount of 
money, it is not surprising that the eight 
universities sponsoring this study have con- 
siderable weight in local money markets . Of 
the $2.1 billion in combined assets these 
universities hold, nearly $2 billion is in 
metro Boston. Their faculties, staffs, and 
students have local bank accounts totaling 
$224 million. These sums make the universi- 
ties substantial suppliers of funds for other 
borrowers. In addition, the eight universities 
themselves are the borrowers of $130 million, 
half of their loans negotiated with Boston 
area agencies. Furthermore, the universities 
encourage an inflow of funds through the 
gifts of their benefactors — a combined $515 
million since the beginning of 1967, a 
substantial part of this from out of state. 



A. UNIVERSITIES ARE SOURCES OF FUNDS WORTH NEARLY 
?2 BILLION IN THE METRO BOSTON COMMUNITY . ^ 

The eight major universities have combined assets in 
cash and marketable securities totaling $2.1 billion. Cash 
alone amounts to $29 million. Of the balance of liquid 
assets and marketable securities, $1.9 billion is in revenue- 
generating portfolio investments . 

Part of this money represents short-term investments 
made in managing cash flows. The bulk is endowment invest- 
ments resulting from past gifts from friends of the 
universities . 

A pool of funds of such magnitude makes the universi- 
ties, in some respects, financial institutions in their own 
right. They offer funds to other parties in the money 
market. They support the borrowers of the area. Some 8 3% 
of their liquid assets are in the metro Boston area, 
(mostly in the City), and 96% of their portfolio securities. 



B. FACULTY AND STAFF HAVE $19 6 MILLION 
IN LOCAL BANKS . 

Surveys of faculty and staff expenditure patterns 
carried out for this project indicate a total of $19 5.6 
million in local bank accounts: $22.8 million in checking 
accounts and $172.8 in savings accounts. (These figures 
allow for responses indicating "non-ownership" of such 
accounts, and, since such data may be non-responses, the 
estimates are almost certainly low.) 

The employees of the major schools thus have nearly 
seven times as much cash in the bank as their employers I 
This money is an important element in the area's banking 
industry. It represents money for borrowers of all kinds 
and one form of support for the regional economy. 



C. STUDENTS HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS 
tOtALIMg $25 HILLTOP . 

One would not expect the students of a university to 
be as highly capitalized as their elders on the payroll 
because most of them are not gainfully employed. Even so, 
the 70,000 students of the eight major universities have 
bank accounts estimated to total $28 million: $21.8 million 
in savings accounts and $6.2 million in checking accounts. 1 

Students , it seems , are a significant source of funds 
for the money market. It is not surprising that some banks 
like having campus branches . 



D. UNIVERSITIES ARE ALSO LARGE BORROWERS: 
?130 MILLTM^ ' 

While not all university borrowings represent demand 
for funds in the Boston money markets , it is significant 
that the combined borrowings of the eight institutions total 
$130 million. The distribution by type of borrowing is 
enumerated in Table 9 . 



This information was computed from surveys of student 
finances carried out at each school. Just over half of the 
respondents do not have bank accounts , according to student 
surveys. This may or may not be true. The computed 
estimate of $2 8 million may be on the low side. 



Table 9 



UNIVERSITY BORROWING 



Amount 



($) 



Average outstanding bank 
loans 

Bonds, mortgages J security 



$ 21,476,000 



issues 
Other 



101 ,215 ,000 
7 ,404 ,000 



$ 130 ,095 ,000 



The universities , as borrowers as well as lenders , 
are thus a potent force in Boston area money markets and 
important contributors to the earnings of private and 
institutional investors . According to university records , 
half of these loans were made in Boston itself, most of 
the rest outside the metro area altogether (particularly 
in New York ) . 



E. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO THE UNIVERSITIES 
EXCEED $1 MILLION A YEAR . 

Brokerage, counseling, and other fees in excess of 
$1 million a year are paid by the major universities, an 
estimated 55% of this ($605,000) to Boston firms. 



F. GIFTS TO THE UNIVERSITIES ARE A SOURCE 
OF MONEY INFLOW TO METRO BOSTON . 

In the six years since the beginning of 196 7, the eight 
universities have received gifts totaling $515 million, a 
rate of $85 million per year on the average. Harvard and 
M.I.T. are the main beneficiaries, as might be expected from 
their history and size, and from the scope of their graduate 
and research programs. An undetermined but substantial 
fraction of this money comes from out of state. 



VII 

EXPENDITURES BY FACULTY AND STAFF 



SUMMARY: The faculties and staffs of the 
eight universities sponsoring this study 
number 35,400, with combined salaries of 
$348.9 million in 1972. Ninety-two percent 
of these employees live within the metro 
Boston area, where they paid an estimated 
$27 million in local property taxes in 1972. 
Payroll deductions for Massachusetts state 
income tax came to $13 million. Of their 
disposable income of $2 39 million, the uni- 
versities* employees spent $196 million 
(82%) in metro Boston, $118 million on food 
and housing. Their purchases of durable 
and non-durable goods (housing and trans- 
portation excluded) account for $1 of every 
$75 in metro Boston's retail trade. 



A. FACULTY AND STAFF OF THE EIGHT MAJOR UNIVERSITIES 
SPEND 82% OF THEIR $2 39 MILLION DISPOSABLE 
INC0M£ WITriTN MmO BOSTOM . 

In sampling! the faculty and staff at the institutions , 
the project group found that all but 8% reside within the 
metro Boston area. Including personal and business travel, 
members of the university community spend an estimated 18% 



The sample consisted of 4,487 replies to a question- 
naire sent to members of the faculty and staff of the eight 
universities. It is a 12% sample. Data concerning the 
dollar amounts of expenditure were supplemented by university 
information on the location of employees. U.S. Department 
of Labor statistics on family expenditure patterns were used 
to allocate consumer expenditures to the main items in 
household budgets . In this analysis , intermediate family 
patterns were chosen ($12,819 income) which correspond 
closely to the institutional average in Boston. This method 
is judged to be more reliable than trying to elicit the 
information from employees through questionnaires without 
depth interviews. See U.S. Department of Labor, 3 Budgets 
for an Urban Family of Four Persons, 1971. 



25. 



of their personal expenditures outside of the metropolitan 
area . 

The aggregate income of the faculty and staff was 
$348.9 million in 1972. Of this, $110 million was deducted 
for state and federal taxes , employee contributions to 
annuities, and other payroll deductions, leaving $2 39 
million in disposable income, $196 million spent in metro 
Boston . 



B. FACULTY AND STAFF REPRESENT A $134 M ILLION ANN UAL 
MARKET TQ-k COHsUHEk I)URAbLEs A^JD NON-DurAbLES . 

Of disposable faculty and staff income totaling $2 39 
million in 1972, $134 million went for consumer durables and 
non-durables . 1 This inference is drawn from Table 10, as 
the balance of expenditure beyond housing and transportation 
(which represent 44% of the total). 

In 1972, food and housing accommodation took up 60% of 
the middle-income family budget, representing a $118 million 
metro area market. Housing represented a $6 7 million portion 
of this total. Respondents to the surveys indicated that 
they spent 6.7% of their incomes on durable goods. The 
figure is not an unreasonable one -- but it is clouded by a 
question of how much went for purchase of motor vehicles. 



-■-The breakdown of durables vs. non-durables is not easy 
to compute precisely from the available data because the 
"housing" figures in the table include furnishings. 



Table 10 



EXPENDITURE PATTERNS OF FACULTY AND STAFF, 19 72 

($000) 





City of 
Boston 


Other 
Metro Boston 


Other 
Areas 


TOTAL 


% 


Food 


12 ,426 


38 ,521 


11,184 


62 ,131 


26 


Housing 


16 ,250 


50 , 374 


14 ,625 


81 ,249 


34 


Transportation 


4 ,779 


14,816 


4 ,301 


23 ,896 


10 


Clothing S 


5 2 5 7 


16 297 


4,732 


26,286 


11 


Medical care 


2 ,868 


8,889 


2 ,581 


14 ,338 


6 


Other family 
consumption 


3 ,345 


10 ,372 


3 ,010 


16 ,727 


7 


Other items 


2 ,868 


8 ,889 


2 ,581 


14 ,338 


6 


Disposable 
income 


47 ,79 3 


148 ,158 


43 ,014 


2 38 ,965 


100 


% in areas 


20% 


62% 


18% 






C. UNIVERSITY 


PEOPLE SPEND $15 MILLION ON 






CHILDREN'S 


PRIVATE 


EDUCATION. 









Sixteen percent of the children of university faculty 
and staff members attend private educational institutions. 
The average family outlay for these families was $2,665 in 
1972, totaling $14.9 million. 



D. PURCHASES BY UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT FOR $1 OUT 
OF EVERY $75 IM M^tRO b^STOM RETAIL SALES . 

Excluding housing and transportation, university 
employees spent $110 million of their disposable income in 
1972 in metro Boston. This amounted to 1.48% of the $7.4 
billion reported for retail sales in the area.^ This rela- 



Retail sales figures for the Boston SMSA were estimated 
from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual Retail Trade 
Report; 19 71 (Washington, D.C. September 1972 ) . 

27. 



tive value has been observed in previous studies and rep- 
resents a significant element in local commerce. 

E. UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND STAFF PAY $2 7 MILLION 

IN LOCAL tayet : 

At least half of the universities ' faculty and staff 
members own their own homes , according to the surveys 
conducted for this study. On these homes, they said they 
paid $2 3 million in property taxes in 19 72 -- of which $20 
million went to governments in the metro area. Some 17% 
of this latter sum was paid to the City of Boston, the 
remaining 83% to other metro municipalities. 

Of the 35,000 employees, at least 15% reported living 
in rented quarters. If a monthly per capita rent of $200, 
annual rent of $2400, and property taxes at 20% of rents are 
assumed, then each renter would be indirectly paying $480 
in taxes. The total for 15,000 tenants is $7.2 million, 
bringing the aggregate local tax payments to $2 7 million in 
1972 . 

These tax estimates do not include state or federal 
income tax payments or the various other state and federal 
levies for fees, licenses, sales tax, restaurant/bar charges, 
etc. In 1972, the universities collected $13 million in 
state income taxes from faculty and staff. The Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts 3% sales tax on selected classes of items 
other than food and clothing yields several hundred thousands 
of dollars a year from university employees, and the state's 
5.7% restaurant tax on meals and drinks adds further to 
state receipts. 



28. 



VIII 

EXPENDITURES BY STUDENTS 



SUMMARY: Economic surveys of university 
communities invariably reveal that students 
spend most of their money in the immediate 
area of the campus . This is valid for the 
Boston area too: the 70,000 full-time stu- 
dents enrolled in its eight major universities 
reported spending nearly $156 million in 
1972, 94% of it in the City of Boston and 
surrounding communities.! A majority of these 
students (60%) seem to come from outside the 
metro Boston area. If it is assumed that 
students are typically financed by their 
parents , this suggests a huge inflow of out- 
side funds for student spending in metro 
Boston — up to $9 3 million a year. When 
student spending money is added to other 
external sources of funds , for university 
operations , the total flowing into the area 
probably exceeds that generated by any other 
form of local economic activity. 

A. STUDENTS OF THE EIGHT UNIVERSITIES S PEND $156 
MILLION A VEAk, M IN METRO BC^TOT : 

In 1972, the 70,000 full-time students in the eight 



Data on student spending patterns came from eight 
sample surveys carried out in each university, and from uni- 
versity records. The total sample numbered 6,22 8 usable 
returns. Input data were edited, weighted with participa- 
tion rates in each institution, and projected from weekly 
and monthly to annual bases by multiplication factors of 30 
and 8 respectively. Summer school activities were ignored 
insofar as they affect full-time students. Using Datatext 
and SPSS programs , computerized analyses enabled the project 
members to evaluate distribution and skewness and check 
against master records for representativeness. However, the 
survey was anonymous and confidential, not permitting any 
follow-up of non-respondents. Hence its degree of represen- 
tativeness on some questions is greater than on others . 
Results were compared with those of similar studies and can 
be accepted as having tolerable confidence limits . Pro- 
fessor Ralph B. D'Agostino of Boston University helped with 
some of these problems of sampling. 



29. 



major universities spent an estimated $155,6 31,000, almost 
all of it (9M%) in either the City of Boston or the surround- 
ing metro municipalities . ^ (See Table 11.) 



According to students' own statements, a student 
typically spends about 70% of his money in the city where he 
studies, the other 30% in the surrounding towns. There are, 
of course, many crossovers: a student living in Cambridge 
to attend Harvard or MIT spends some of his money in Boston, 
while the Boston-based student may spend some of his across 
the river in Cambridge. The same applies to the other 
consituent area municipalities where institutions are located. 
In 1972, student spending totaled more than $61 million in 
Boston, more than $85 million in other metro communities. 
Merchants and landlords in campus areas are alert to the 
value of student business , hence the variety of establish- 
m.ents near campuses geared to student trade. 



B. Ul% OF STUDENT EXPENDITURE IS ON FOOD AND 
ACCOMMODATION; ?6^ MILLION A YEAR . 

Students spend $64 million for food and rent annually. 
This estimate excludes dormitory meals for students 
resident at the universities. For "rents" it covers only 
the 46% of the student body who live in off-campus quarters 
of their own. The numbers are for only eight months of the 
year, not twelve, and exclude part-time student spending for 
these items. The totals are, therefore, certainly a 
conservative estimate. 

A student typically spends most of his money in his 
immediate campus area. This is reflected in the relatively 
small figures for "other areas" in Table 11. The "rent" 
reporting of 6% spent in "other areas" probably overstates 
the am.ount expended beyond metro Boston. 



On the student surveys , respondents could not be expect- 
ed to estimate precisely where each item in their budget was 
spent. So a general question was asked them as to the 
proportion of their money spent in local areas, the citVs and 
metro Boston. The application of these percentages is a 
necessary constraint on the reliability of the area distribu- 
tions in the table. Comments on this appear in the text. 
The errors are to som^e extent compensating; in any event, 
they do not m.aterially change the overall result. 



30. 



Table 11 



DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT EXPENDITURES, 19 72 







5 u u u ; 










Type of 


City of 


Metro Boston 


Other 


+ Total 




Expenditure 


Boston 


(excl. city) 


Areas 


Amount 




i 


Rent 


13 ,252 


18 ,456 


1,952 


33 ,660 


21 


.6 


Food 


11 ,983 


16 ,688 


1 ,765 


30 ,436 


19 


.5 


Durable Goods 


9 ,301 


12 ,954 


1,370 


2 3 ,625 


15 


.2 


Drink 8 
Entertainment 


6 ,985 


9 ,728 


1,030 


17 ,743 


11 

^ -L. 


.4 


Local 

Transportation 


4 ,913 


6 ,842 


723 


12 4 7 8 


Q 

o 


.0 


Travel 


3,163 


4 ,405 


466 


8 ,034 


5 


.2 


Clothing 


2 ,985 


4 ,158 


440 


7,583 


4 


.9 


Telephone 


2 ,693 


3 ,750 


396 


6,839 


4 


.4 


Personal & 
Medical 


2 ,505 


3 ,489 


369 


6 ,363 


4 


.1 


Other 


3 ,H92 


4 ,863 


515 


8 ,870 


5 


.7 


Total 


61 ,272 


85 ,333 


9 ,026 


155 ,631 


100 


.0 


% by Area 


39% 


55% 


6% 


100% 







31. 



C. STUDENT EXPENDITURES FOR DRINKS, ENTERTAINMENT , 

DuRABLfc eOODS, And tRAV£L tOTAL $u7 HiLmTT 



A YEAR IN METRO BOSTON. 



By adult standards, student outlays on drinks and 
entertainment seem to be relatively large in relation to 
food purchases, but the latter do not include dormitorv meals. 
Durable goods are also a large (15%) component of students' 
annual expenditures . 

Drinks and entertainment and durable goods, together, 
represent a local market of $39 million a year. This 
conclusion assumes that most actual expenditures correspond 
with the students' indications of where, in general, they 
spend their money. The "travel" component is 5% of the 
total, or another $8 million a year out of overall student 
expenditures while at school. It is highly likely that much 
more than 6% of it is spent outside of the Boston area, and 
to this extent the figures are somewhat overstated as far as 
local impact is concerned. Drinks, entertainment, durable 
goods, and travel accounted for $50 million in 1972, $47 
million in metro Boston. 



D. STUDENTS SPEND ABOUT $7 MILLION A YEAR 
ON TELEPHONES . 

Surveys undertaken for this study indicate that stu- 
dents are important telephone customers . Nearly one 
dollar in every twenty they spend goes for telephone service. 

The total student expenditure on telephones is 
computed from the surveys at $6.8 million in 1972. This is 
only a little less than the $7.5 million outlay for clothing 
(most of which is presumably brought from home and is not 
reflected in students' school expenditures). 

E. STUDENTS SPEND ANOTHER $18 MILLION A YEAR IN METRO 
BOSTON ON LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AND PERSONAL AND 
MEDICAL EXPENSES . 

Local transportation costs are a large item in student 
budgets — 8% of the total, $12 million a year. This figure 
includes car operations, which partly account for its size. 

Personal and medical expenses at 4% of budgets , a 
total of $6.4 million a year, seem to be relatively small by 
adult standards . This may indicate that parents pay these 
bills for their children, over and above their allowances for 
university. Also, health insurance plans have above-average 
coverage in the income groups whose offspring are likely to 
be in college. 



32. 



F. STUDEN T EXP ENDITURES INCLUDE AN ANNUAL INFLOW 
OF ABOUT $yS MILLION INTO METRO BOSTON. 



According to university records about high schools of 
origin and the responses of students to the sample surveys , 
about 60% of the students of the eight universities come 
from outside the metro area. 

To the extent that students' residential origins imply 
their sources of funding while at the university, up to $9 3 
million of the total of $156 million is coming from outside 
metro Boston. 



IX 

EXPENDITURES BY CAMPUS VISITORS 



SUMMARY: That special class of "tourists" 
made up of visitors to university campuses 
has been largely neglected in day-to-day 
record-keeping and in economic surveys . In- 
vestigations conducted for this study 
indicate that three kinds of visitors to the 
eight universities -- parents , friends of 
students , academic and professional visitors — 
spend nearly a million visitor days a year in 
the Boston area, not to mention the time spent 
by part-time university students from out of 
town. This influx of visitors to campuses 
accounts for expenditures of at least $15.5 
million a year for food, local accommodation, 
local transportation, and other purchases. 



A. EXPENDITURES BY VISITORS TO BOS TON UNIVER SITIES 
^R0feA5LV ExOe£D $15.5 MILLIOM PER YEAR . 

Comparisons of detailed studies-*- of university visitor 
expenditures by Boston University, M.I.T., and Tufts Univer- 
sity, together with related indicators from the other 
participating institutions , indicate that a minimum estimate 
of annual visitor expenditures would be $15.5 million. 

The calculation of visitor expenditures is difficult, 
not because it is so hard to find out what individual 
visitors spend, but because the number and duration of visits 
is not usually recorded by colleges and universities. 
Students receive visits from their parents and from their 
friends , coming from various distances and staying for vary- 
ing lengths of time. Professional and business visitors 



Methodological contributions to , and direct support for 
the visitors surveys were m.ade by Carl Nelson of the Boston 
University College of Business Administration and by Brooks 
Paine, a member of Dr. Nelson's graduate seminar. 



come and go, the details of their visits largely unrecorded. 
This study confines itself to consideration of four classes 
of visitors -- parents, friends of students, professional 
and academic visitors , and part-time students from out of 
town. Their probable expenditures are enumerated in Table 
12 . 

Specifically excluded from this analysis is any 
consideration of visitors to the campuses who stay to become 
migrants to the academic community, either within the univer- 
sities or in businesses surrounding the universities . Also 
excluded are visitors (except for those in the four 
categories mentioned above) who come to attend sporting 
programs , cultural programs , and other university events , or 
to attend meetings or entertainments which, though not 
directly connected with the universities , are often located 
here because the desired audience or participant list lives 
in the area. 



Table 12 

EXPENDITURES BY CAMPUS VISITORS, 1972 
($ millions) 



Parents 5 . 5 

Friends 7.1 

Academic/Professional 1.3 

Part-time students 1.6 



15.5 



B. PARENTS SPEND ABOUT $5.5 MILLION A YEAR WHILE VISITING 
STUDENTS AT METRO BOSTON UNIVERSITIES . 

Surveys among students and parents conducted for this 
study indicate that 39% of students at the eight major univer- 
sities were visited by their parents in 1972. Parents from 



This analysis is based in part on special surveys 
carried out by Boston-area university personnel. The results 
are consistent with those of a similar study at the University 
of Pittsburgh in 19 72, carried out by the SDL Systems Research 
Group . 



out of town (about 60% of students enrolled on a full-time 
basis come from outside metro Boston) visit, on the average, 
just over twice a year and stay about 2.8 days on each 
visit. In all, it is estimated that visits to students by 
parents during 1972 accounted for 183,000 visitor days in 
30,000 visits, the vast majority from outside the metro area 
(Visits from nearby parents are, of course, rarer and have 
little economic impact.) 

Visiting parents' per diem expenditures range from 
$12 to $40+. The surveys clearly indicate that the typical 
expenditure rate for a party of parents from out of state 
is $78 a day for an average party of 2.U, or $33 per person. 
In-state parents traveling from points nearer Boston spend 
about $45 a day for the same size party, or $19 per person. 
Those coming to town just for the day typically spend $12 
on purchases connected with their trips . Detailed surveys 
among students in the participating universities and their 
parents yield a weighted average per diem expenditure of 
almost exactly $30 for an out-of-town parent, which, multi- 
plied by 183,000 visitor days, totals $5.5 million. 1 This 
is judged to be a reliable figure. 



C. FRIENDS VISITING STUDENTS AT BOSTON UNIVERSITIES 
BRING IN 3 7.1 MILLION ANNUALLY . 

Friends who come to visit students at Boston's eight 
major universities certainly spend, on the average, 
considerably less each day than visiting parents. But they 
come more often, and they stay much longer. Surveys 
conducted for this study indicate that 66% of the students 
were visited by friends in 1972 in visits lasting a day or 
more. The average number of such visits received during 
the year was five, the average length almost exactly three 
days . 

No reliable figures on the per diem, expenditures of 
students' friends or on the distance traveled in their 
visits to metro Boston are available. For this reason, the 
daily spending rate has been estimated conservatively at 



If this computation is compared with the 1972 study 
carried out at the University of Pittsburg, a straight extra 
polation to Boston on the basis of student enrollments 
would yield $6.1 m.illion. 



$10, about one-third the parental average. Since the visits, 

however, generate 710,000 visitor days, the total for even 

this conservative estimate comes to $7.1 million, 29% more 
money than parents spend on their visits . 



D. VARIOUS ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL VISITORS TO METRO 
BOSTON SPEND ANOTHER $1.3 MILLION ANNUALLY . 

The academic community engages in considerable 
intellectual intercourse : faculty members and staff travel 
to attend meetings , to present papers , to take part in 
experiments, to apply for jobs, to recruit students, faculty, 
or staff for academic programs or jobs, to give guest 
lectures, or just to trade ideas with colleagues in other 
institutions. As Chapter V has mentioned, the travel 
expenditures for the eight major universities in metro 
Boston amounted to $13 million in 19 72 , M-.6% of total pur- 
chases. 1 Since Boston is especially prominent among 
university communities , one can assume that it receives more 
visits than most. 

In the absence of good records of academic and 
professional visits to campuses, surveys conducted for this 
project related the number of academic and professional 
visits to the number of faculty members . The ratio of 
visits ranged from 1.8 to 3.8 per year per faculty member, 
with an average of just under 3. If these rates are applied 
to the faculty counts at participating universities , a 
total of 42,000 academic and professional visitor days 
emerges for 1972. Since some of these visitors were compen- 
sated and since some certainly did not stay overnight, it 
is estimated that each spent $30 a day for a total of $1.3 
million, probably an underestimate. 

E. PART-TIME STUDENTS SPEND $1.6 MILLION PER YEAR IN 
COMING FROM OUTSIDE THE LOCAL AREA TO UNIVERSITY . 

Part-time students play an important role in Boston's 
educational institutions : they constitute 27% of total 



Examination of the research in the University of Pitts- 
burgh economic impact study reveals that almost precisely the 
same proportion of total university purchases was represented 
by travel expenditures . 



head count in student registrations. The economic effects 
of these students, however, are smaller than those of their 
full-time confreres . They may not go to school as long at 
any one session or come back as faithfully to continue. 
And many of them live in Boston or its surrounding communi- 
ties and commute short distances from their homes or jobs 
to class. Typically, part-time students are older and 
already employed in the area, either full-time or part- 
time . 

Interviews with part-time students in Boston indicated 
that those coming from outside the metro area (an estimated 
25% of the 29,000 total) spend an average of $230 per year 
on a combination of recurring and incidental expenses -- the 
latter reflecting an inclination to do some shopping while 
downtown. These visitors (numbering just over 7,000 and 
spending an average of $2 30 per year) add $1.6 million a 
year to the local economy. 



F. THE UNIVERSITIES' CULTURAL AND SPORTING EVENTS 
DRAW ADDITIONAL MONEY TO METRO BOSTON . 

Besides parents , friends , academic and professional 
visitors, and part-time students from out of town, the 
universities of metro Boston are hosts to additional visitors 
who arrive for football games and other sporting events, 
for concerts , plays , exhibits , and other cultural events . 
Alumni of the universities are an important segment of this 
class of visitor, for reunions, convocations and other events 
of special interest to graduates . The amount these cultural 
and sporting visitors and alumni spend is likely to total in 
the range of from $8 million to $12 million annually. 
Since this cannot be substantiated, however, the inflow from 
such visits has not been included in the total inflow for 
visitors ' expenditures . 



38. 



X 

TAX EXEMPTIONS AND OFFSETS 



SUMMARY: Under the laws of the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts , the educational properties 
of universities and colleges are exempt from 
local property taxes . This represents an 
undetermined dollar loss to local municipal- 
ities in tax receipts , though a small loss 
compared with that stemming from the much 
more extensive government-owned tax-exempt 
properties . The universities sponsoring this 
study may be viewed as offsetting some of the 
municipal services they receive by their own 
provision of municipal-type services , their 
community services, and, in some cases, 
payments to local governments in lieu of 
taxes . Although local governments may incur 
net dollar losses because of the presence of 
educational institutions within their juris- 
diction, those same universities provide 
large hidden financial benefits to the 
Commonwealth as a whole and to its taxpayers . 



A. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE NOT TAXABLE 
UNDER CuRI^ENT MASSACHUSETTS LAWS . 

Using its general constitutional authority, the Massa- 
chusetts General Court has granted property tax exemptions 
to educational institutions "to cherish the interest of 
literature and the sciences and all seminaries of them." 
Harvard has the distinction of being specifically cited, 
having been founded in 16 36, two hundred years before the 
tax acts formalizing exemptions for it and other similar 
institutions in 1836. 



Material for this section was provided in part by the 
participating universities. Other sources include Edward 
H. Dlott's study. Institutional Property Tax Exemptions 
(Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Inc. , 19 71) and reports 
of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau. 



Even though they are not obliged to do so, tax-exempt 
educational institutions may pay sums in lieu of taxes to 
hard-pressed municipal governments. The Commonwealth 
com.pensates cities and towns for the public educational 
institutions located within their jurisdictions. And 
private universities, of course, have always paid taxes on 
their properties that are not dedicated to their academic 
missions. No exemption has been promulgated in Massachusetts 
on such non- educational properties as universities may hold 
for investment and the earning of revenues. For these, the 
colleges and universities of metro Boston are taxed like 
other property owners , paying $4 million a year on their non- 
exempt property. 

This report will not deal directly with the question 
of whether or not educational properties should be taxed. 
That question is bound up with many social and political 
issues that have little relationship to "economic impacts". 
Among these are the pros and cons of basic reform in the 
state/local tax structure. 



B. REVENUE LOSSES THROUGH EXEMPTIONS ARE 
BOTH HYPOTHETICAL AND ELUSIVE . 

Since colleges and universities are not legally liable 
for property taxes on their (non-revenue) educational 
facilities, any notions or measures of "revenue losses" are 
entirely hypothetical . 

The problem of evaluating tax exemptions has been 
discussed at length by Edward Dlott in his study for the 
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation already referred to. 
Assessors , busy with their current tasks , can hardly be ex- 
pected to spend time updating and revising exempt property 
assessments which mean nothing in current tax terms . There 
is also the valuation problem as such. How would one "value" 
a university campus? Its book value might be too low, and 
its market value really a figment of the imagination, since 
alternative uses for major university facilities are in most 
cases hard to visualize. There are other problems, too -- 
so many, in fact, that we reluctantly decided to abandon 
the effort to discuss the dollar value of tax exemptions in 
this report . 



C. GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTIES INCREASINGLY 
DOMINATE BOSTON EXEMPTIONS . 

Government property accounts for 81% of tax-exempt land 
in Boston. If one uses property valuation figures, which may 



40. 



or may not be currently realistic for tax-exempt properties , 
government property is responsible for 7 3% of property-tax 
revenue losses through exemptions in Boston. According to 
a Boston Municipal Research Bureau study on tax exemption: 

The disproportionate concentration of tax-exempt 
real estate in Boston has become an increasingly 
important consideration in the City's attempt to 
stabilize its tax rate. In 1972, 56% of the City's 
total property valuation and M-2% of the City's land 
area were exempt from real estate taxes. Govern- 
mental bodies own most of the tax-exempt property 
in the City, accounting for 41% of the City's total 
property valuation and 34% of the City's land area. 
Only 15% of Boston's property valuation and 8% of 
the City's land area are held by non-governmental 
tax-exempt property . During the period 1960-1972 
governmental tax-exempt land increased 15.9% -- 
mostly by the City itself and by the Commonwealth -- 
while non-governmental tax-exempt land decreased 
6.5%. The most logical solution to the tax-exempt 
problem is for the State to spread the cost of 
exemptions over the Commonwealth. However, other 
alternatives are available which could be initiated 
by the City. The overall City's financial problems 
are not caused primarily by tax-exempt real estate, 
which is only a moderate contributing factor. The 
City's financial problems can only be fundamentally 
alleviated by comprehensive tax reform.! 

How do tax exemptions affect the increasing burden of 
real estate taxes on the city's property owners? The Bureau 
noted (p . 2 ) : 

Of concern in Boston is whether a high tax rate 
is caused by a large percentage of tax-exempt 
property. VJhile there does exist a moderate re- 
lationship between these two factors , the respon- 
sibility for the rise in the tax rate lies primarily 
with the City's need to increasingly rely on the 
property tax to meet ever-increasing costs . 



Boston Municipal Research Bureau, The Boston Property 
Tax 111: Tax-Exempt Property -- Asset or Liability , Special 
Report No. 10, April 25, 197 3, p. 4. 



41. 



D. 



THE MAJOR UNIVERSITIES OCCUPY 1.4% OF THE 



METRO BOSTON LAND AREA. 



Table 13 

UNIVERSITY AREA IN METRO BOSTON, 19 72 

Table 13 outlines briefly the relationship between 
campus and municipal land area. 

Area of the 8 
Municipal Area Universities 
Locality (Square Miles) (Square Miles) 

Boston 45.40 0.90 (2.0%) 

Other Metro 226.72 2.96 (1.3%) 



TOTAL 272.12 3.86 (1.4%) 



Although tax-exempt properties are reported to make up 
42% of the area of the City, they are only to a minor extent 
(8%) made up of privately owned real estate. The 8 major 
universities of the city own 0.90 square miles of real 
property, which represents 2% of the total land area. 

The amount of university-owned property in the surround- 
ing SMSA outside the boundaries of the City itself is larger 
(2.96 square miles), but the proportion is smaller, amounting 
to only 1.3% of the land area. 



E. THE COST OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES ATTRIBUTABLE 

TO THE PRESENCE Or THE UNTVfcRSTTTT:? 

CANNOT BE READILY MEASURED . 

A separate study of considerable sophistication would 
be required to measure the cost of municipal services 
attributable to the presence of the major universities in 
this study -- to say nothing of the costs implied by the 
presence of the other 57 schools of metro Boston. 

While the universities provide certain municipal-type 
services for themselves -- which would otherwise have to be 
provided by the cities and towns where their campuses are 
located -- they also create a demand for these services 
which are then paid for by local taxpayers. 



42 . 



The institutions may require added fire or police 
protection services , maintenance of utilities such as sewer- 
age and water systems , or road maintenance on or near their 
campuses. It is very difficult to apportion such costs on 
an objective, scientific basis. 

Colleges and universities may also add indirectly to 
municipal costs: the cost of congestion, traffic control, 
police and fire protection, and public works expense 
occasioned by high-density student populations surrounding 
the campuses , additional public transportation that may be 
subsidized by the taxpayers, and so on. It is not entirely 
certain that the population of students — or faculty and 
staff members — pay their own way on such services through 
the taxes they pay directly and indirectly to their munici- 
palities. In fact, it may be difficult to determine, 
ultimately, which levels of government incur the most costs 
and secure the greatest benefits from these populations. 
The flows of revenues and incidences on taxpayers are them- 
selves relatively inscrutable. The benefit matrix between 
state and local expenditures is even more so. 

In the field of municipal finance, the question of who 
benefits and who pays has long been a subject of study and 
concern. After diligent inquiry, we have found no 
methodology capable of sorting out these complex variables. 
Hence our decision to indicate in a "categorical" fashion 
the nature of the implied municipal charges (without trying 
to state them in annual dollar amounts). 



F. UNIVERSITIES PROVIDE SERVICES TO THEIR COMMUNITIES 
THAT OFFSET TAX EXEMPTIONS . 

The town/ gown economic nexus can be looked at in 
several ways. The presence of the colleges and universities 
requires a total set of municipal (or state) services and 
related expenditures . If some of these services are 
supplied by the institutions for themselves , then to this 
extent such services "offset" the total that would otherwise 
be needed. 

Another hypothesis is that the total local-service 
costs that can be imputed to the institutions is the estima- 
ted value of their tax exemptions , or the revenue that is 
lost to the municipality because of the existence of the 
schools on certain parcels of land. Such a hypothesis 
might or might not be true; if it were, the value of self- 
supplied municipal-type services could be considered an 
offset to the shadow tax bill of the higher education sector. 



43. 



In addition to municipal-type services provided by 
the colleges and universities for themselves , other kinds 
of offsets take the form of community services rendered by 
the institutions and perhaps their faculty, staffs , and 
students. Community services may have a quite direct 
relation to education as such. They may be performed 
directly by members of the faculty and student body on 
either a voluntary or paid basis . It is impossible to 
differentiate the service elements into "voluntary" and 
"paid" components , because the methodological problem 
moves into the evaluation of volunteer efforts in the 
community in general.! 

In calculating the value of community services , we 
have not included cultural events linked to the universities 
but not directly dependent on them for presentation (e.g. 
orchestral concerts). Nor have we tried to estimate the 
social value of the several medical complexes associated 
with Boston University, Harvard, and Tufts. While these are 
all worthy of study, they fall outside our terms of refer- 
ence as "economic impact" has been defined. 

More tangible direct offsets to the cost of municipal 
(and state) services -- municipal-type services provided 
by the schools for themselves, and their identifiable direct 
public services -- are thus neither exhaustive in concept 
nor susceptible of ready evaluation. Together, they amount 
to many millions of dollars per year. 



If we were to consider the value of education per se , 
we could define more offsets. One benefit is the income- 
earning power correlated with higher educational achievement. 
Students profit from their university studies -- although 
the self -selection element cannot be ignored. Graduates' 
lifetime earnings alone increase by at least $200,000, on 
the average. That represents a tremendous addition to 
"human capital" in the metro Boston area, running to billions 
of dollars on a life-annuity computation. Such values can 
run into millions of dollars for individuals alone, in the 
professions. This in turn brings secondary benefits of many 
kinds, social as well as financial, to the community. For a 
recent analysis of such extended benefits of postsecondary 
education, see Stephen B. Withey, A Degree and What Else? 
Correlates and Consequences of a College Education" a report 
prepared for The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education , 
Berkeley, California, 1971. 



1 . Municipal-type Services 



Municipal-type services provided by the major 
universities for themselves include portions of police and 
fire protection, road repairs, snow removal, lighting, and 
trash and garbage disposal. These services are provided 
in approximately equal measure in the City of Boston and 
in other communities of the SMSA. 

2 . Community Services 

The approximate value of direct social services 
to the community by the major universities can be estimated 
but cannot be measured reliably in dollar terms , Aside from 
the data collection problem caused by highly decentralized 
service delivery systems in departments, divisions, etc., it 
is difficult to differentiate official programs under which 
university people are paid from the important volunteer work 
that frequently parallels or complements them. Here are 
selected examples of community services: 

Medical and dental clinics , health service 
programs (including public health) , 
support for improved medical care for 
people in the lower income ranges , or in 
custodial/therapeutic institutions. These 
are mainly provided through Boston Uni- 
versity, Harvard, and Tufts. 

Nursing, paramedical, and related social 
welfare services , including day care 
centers . 

Legal aid, legal research, and counseling 
or rehabilitation. 

Teaching, tutoring, and special education 
programs . 

Drama workshops and theater groups . 

Library and related services. 

Indirect support for the Boston Symphony 
Orchestra and other musical groups through 
faculty appointments. 

Leadership in environmental management 
training, river basin improvement. 

Community projects in reconstruction planning, 
housing and transportation system planning, 
public policy analysis. 



45. 



In an attempt to increase aid to deserving students 
unable to afford to attend university, the major institu- 
tions have recently added to existing scholarship programs . 
The sizes of the awards vary according to the program and 
the university. 

The eight institutions sponsoring this study channeled 
$88 million to students in scholarships, employment, and 
loans in 19 72, as shown in Table 14. 



Table 14 

UNIVERSITY DISBURSEMENT OF STUDENT AID, 19 72 



Type of Aid Amount ($) % Total 

Scholarships 49,127,000 55.5 

Employment 15,811,000 17.9 

Federal funds 8,813,000 10.0 

Commonwealth funds 5,575,000 6.3 

Universities' own funds 5,209,000 5.9 

Work/study loans 3,915,000 4.4 



88,450,000 100.0 



The entire $88 million should not be thought of as 
"community services" provided by the universities. Not all 
the students receiving such aid are from Boston-area families 
-- although the special Boston University and Northeastern 
city scholarship programs are specifically directed towards 
them. Moreover, a portion (16%) is from federal or state 
loan funds or guarantees of repayment to the lenders in case 
of the recipients' default. While this is a rather 
subjective judgment, we would assign about one-third ($30 
million) to the category of university-funded services to 
local residents -- who might otherwise be helped in their 
education by local or other government bodies . The propor- 
tioning of this sum is based on the geographical origins of 
students. This might or might not be reasonably included in 
the list of "offsets" to the cost of municipal services 
(benefits of tax exemptions), depending on the reader's 
judgment . 

While tax exemptions are becoming increasingly valuable 
to the universities , the universities are also raising their 
level of community services and support to local students. 
These actions help the municipalities, both directly and 
indirectly . 



46. 



G. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DERIVES FINANCIAL 
BENEFIT FROM THE UNIVERSITIES OF METRO BOSTON. 



The preceding paragraphs have suggested various ways 
in which the major universities of metro Boston offset the 
value of property taxes lost to local communities through 
various municipal-type and community services . The tax 
exempt status of educational property, however, has been 
granted by the Commonwealth; but as state taxpayers, the 
citizens of the Commonwealth realize large but hidden bene- 
fits from the presence of private universities in the state, 
particularly from so dense a concentration as in the metro 
Boston area. 

While it is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible 
in a study of this scope, to quantify in detail the benefits 
that the Commonwealth derives directly and indirectly from 
the existence of the universities — especially the private 
ones -- several kinds of benefits can be cited: 

State income taxes paid directly by faculty 
and staff. 

Sales taxes paid by faculty and staff plus 
sales taxes from student expenditures . 

The series of revenues generated by the 
construction and operating programs of the 
universities — through their suppliers and, 
in turn, the employees of these suppliers. 

Contributions to the economic development 
of the Commonwealth , especially in the 
service industries and the inventive tech- 
nology that comes from the institutions . 

The substantial educational expenditures 
that would have to be borne by the state's 
taxpayers if the bulk of the Boston-area 
educational establishment were mainly 
publicly financed. 



XI 



TH E ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE OTHER 5 7 
METRO bOSTOM COLLtetS AND UNTVerSTTTes 



In addition to the eight universities sponsoring this 
study, the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area of Boston 
contains 57 other institutions of higher education. ^ They 
vary greatly in size , from a little over a hundred students 
to more than eight thousand. 

With an overall full-time enrollment of 70,500 
(excluding part-time students), the 57 other schools have 
aggregate annual operating expenditures of approximately 
$200 million. Their students are more likely to be local 
residents (7 3%) as compared with those of the major universi- 
ties (44%). In general, their economic impact is about 30% 
of that of the eight universities . 

Among the economic effects of those 5 7 institutions, 
the following are worthy of note here : 

1. Faculty and staff totaling 5,000 earn $57 million 
in disposable incom.e after taxes and other payroll deductions. 
If their expenditures follow the university members' pattern, 
about 80% of this money ($"46 million) is spent in the metro 
area . 



2. Institutional purchases total $35 mdllion a year, 
75% ($26 million) in Boston or other metro municipalities. 

3. Student expenditures are not precisely known, but 
are probably in the neighborhood of $100 million a year, 
mostly in the metro area. About $37 million of this is 
spent by students coming here from out of town. 

4. Although visitor surveys were not made at these 
schools , a conservative estimate would place annual visitor 
expenditure at $4.5 million (30% of the figure for the 
eight universities). 



The estimates in this chapter are based on returns from 
24 of the schools (42%). For the most part, enrollm.ent data 
were used to estimiate the aggregates for the larger group. 
Readers are reminded that all statistics refer to the 19 72 
"study year. " 



48. 



5 . Student aid of various kinds totaled $15 million 
in 19 72, 5 3% of it in the form of scholarships. 

6 . Municipal-type services and community services 
in these schools — which may have been under-reported in 
our survey -- amounted to $470,000 in the study year. More 
than half of this money went for campus security. 

7. Like other schools, these institutions undertook 
considerable building in the 1960 's and have now reduced 
their rate of campus development. Even so, they are 
currently spending about $2 million a year on construction. 

8. In financial terms, the institutions reported 
cash and portfolio investments of $161 million in 1972. In 
addition, they had liabilities in the form of bonds and 
mortgages totaling $53 million. They spent $500,000 on 
financial management services , mostly in the Boston area. 



APPENDIX A 



A HISTORY OF THE BOSTON EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY 



50. 



A HISTORY OF THE BOSTON EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY 



A. BOSTON IS THE LEADING AMERICAN 
CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION^ 

Beginning with the founding of Harvard College in 16 36, 
the interactive influences of religion, economics, and 
culture have built the knowledge center at Boston to a 
position of national and international eminence: 65 colleges 
and universities in the official metro area. These institu- 
tions spend $1 billion a year, employ more than 41,000 
people , and put up well over a hundred million dollars a 
year in construction. 

But, of course, Boston's colleges and universities are 
much more than businesses. The early history of education 
in New England is largely a history of the greater Boston 
area. The interests of the colonists, the rising scientific- 
technological demands of the economy, and the original 
stimuli of religion all interacted to make the Bay State 
region an educational mecca. Nearly 7% of the population is 
students, nearly 10% of the labor force works in the educa- 
tion industry — these are the largest ratios among all the 
metropolitan areas of the United States . The colleges and 
universities of Boston and its surrounding cities and towns 
are a primary factor in both intellectual and economic 
development in that area. 



B. METRO BOSTON HAS THE HI GHEST RATIO 

Of Student POPULATION (5.5"^) . 

Regardless of one's choice of indicator, the metro 
Boston area is the knowledge center of the United States , 
and always has been. As matters now stand it probably always 
will be the nation's leading educational area because of the 
ways in which its growth is linked to religious, economic, 
and cultural conditions in the area. 

In our study region, which is the Standard Metropolitan 
Statistical Area of Boston as officially defined for the U.S. 



Research for this appendix was carried out by Bradley 
Ware, Harvard graduate and volunteer member of the task force. 



Census, the 190,000 students of the area's 65 colleges and 
universities represented 6.9% of the population in 1970-71. 

To facilitate comparison with other metropolitan 
areas , we have used the Census definitions of both enroll- 
ment and population in Table 1 -- which clearly shows that 
Boston has the highest ratio of student population: 



Table 1 

COLLEGE ENROLLMENT AS PERCENT OF POPULATION 
IN MAJOR U.S. METROPOLITAN AREAS 



SMSA 
Boston 

San Francisco 

Los Angeles 

Washington, DC 

Minneapolis-St . Paul 

New York 

Pittsburgh 

Chicago 

Newark 

Philadelphia 

Baltimore 

St. Louis 

Detroit 

Cleveland 

Houston 



Area Population 
Rank Number 



8 


2 


,753 


,804 


6 


3 


,109 


,514 


2 


7 


,032 


,075 


7 


2 


,861 


,102 


15 


1 


,813 


,647 


1 


11 


,571 


,819 


9 


2 


,401 


,217 


3 


6 


,974 


,423 


m 


1 


,856 


,554 


4 


4 


,817 


,894 


11 


2 


,070 


,668 


10 


2 


,363 


,017 


5 


4 


,199 


,923 


12 


2 


,064 


,192 


13 


1 


,984 


,940 



College Enrollment 
Number % Population 



149 


,420 


5 


.43 


153 


,090 


4 


.92 


308 


,285 


4 


. 38 


122 


,609 


4 


. 29 


77 


,315 


4 


. 26 


396 


,491 


3 


.43 


75 


,661 


3 


.15 


215 


,960 


3 


.10 


56 


,965 


3 


.07 


146 


,682 


3 


.04 


62 


,210 


3 


.00 


68 


,012 


2 


. 89 


116 


,726 


2 


.78 


54 


,848 


2 


.66 


52 


,228 


2 


.63 



New England Board of Higher Education, FACTS 1972-1973 
(Wellesley, 1972 ); U.S. Census Tracts , Table P^Tl Social 
Characteristics of the Population: 1970 (for Boston and 
other Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas). This enroll- 
ment figure, as published by the New England Board of Higher 
Education, is 27% larger than the 149,420 reported in tnc 
19 70 U.S. Census for the area's students enrolled for 
"regular schooling . . . which may advance a person toward . . . 
a^college, university or professional degree". The Census 
figures are for full-time students; those of the New England 
Board of Higher Education include 40,000 part-time 
students . 



52. 



C. MORE PEOPLE WORK IN EDUCATION (9.6%). 



The role of educational institutions as employers in 
the Boston area also reflects the prominence of education in 
this part of New England. A greater portion of the labor 
force is devoted to "educational services"! in the area than 
in any of the other most populous U.S. urban areas: 



Table 2 





FNRAnFT) TM 


FDITPATTOMAT 










xopu±a.xxon 












i\anK 


rjmpxoymen L 


xTi jijaucaLion 




iiimp . 


Boston 


8 


1 ,136 ,474 


10 8 ,907 


9 


.58 


Washington, DC 


7 


1 ,178 ,990 


102 , 381 


8 


.68 


Minne . St. Paul 


15 


759 ,606 


63 ,111 


8 


. 31 


San Francisco 


6 


1 ,267 ,643 


102 ,124 


8 


.06 


Baltimore 


11 


810 ,545 


60,766 


7 


.50 


Pittsburgh 


9 


870 ,902 


64 ,622 


7 


.42 


New York 


1 


4 ,607 ,100 


336 ,410 


7 


. 30 


St. Louis 


10 


898 ,0 37 


65,055 


7 


.24 


Philadelphia 


4 


1 ,878 ,497 


133 ,433 


7 


.10 


Los Angeles 


2 


2 ,826 ,565 


194 ,215 


6 


.87 


Newark 


14 


762 ,30 3 


51,758 


6 


.79 


Detroit 


5 


1 ,570 ,953 


104 ,921 


6 


.68 


Houston 


13 


797 ,421 


52 ,637 


6 


.60 


Cleveland 


12 


828,585 


54 ,484 


6 


.58 


Chicago 


3 


2 ,852 ,017 


179 ,379 


6 


.29 



In economic terms , the Boston margin is a large one 
a 1% differential on this table is a participation rate 
more than 10% greater than the nearest city on the list, 
Washington. In gross numbers, the Boston labor force engaged 
in education is exceeded by only four other large aggrega- 
tions in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia, 
all having larger populations . 



"Educational services" includes employment in public 
and private elementary and secondary schools , colleges , 
universities, and related services. The table is from U.S. 
Census Tracts, Table P-3: Labor Force Characteristics of 
the Population: 19 70 (for Boston and other SMSA's). 



In the Boston area, education is an industry that, in 
terms of employment , exceeds each of the categories of 
construction, transportation, wholesale trade, health 
services, public administration, and finance, insurance and 
real estate. Education holds this strong position notwith- 
standing the recent trend in Boston toward the service 
industries and the particular prominence of the city's financial 
institutions as employers. Boston's situation emphasizes in 
very real terms the economic as well as the cultural value 
of the colleges and universities . 



D. THE DEVELO PMEN T OF THE BOSTON K NOWLEDGE 

Center has b£em a symbiotic process . 

From the founding of Harvard College in 16 36 in 
Cambridge, and the beginnings of other institutions in the 
early 1800 's, the higher education community in the Boston 
area has grown persistently. Schools have been founded 
because of the existence of other schools . Universities 
have helped change the nature of the society and in turn 
have been stimulated by these changes. Hence the notion 
of symbiosis to help explain interacting forces extending 
over more than 300 years. The process is still continuing. 
New influences are still coming to light. They will no 
doubt continue to do so. Boston is characterized by self- 
generating educational growth. 

History gives som.e of the explanations for the Boston 
educational phenomenon. Samuel Eliot Morison ascribed 
three reasons for the founding of Harvard when fewer than 
four thousand colonists had settled around Massachusetts 
Bay: (1) a learned clergy and educated men to govern the 
colony, (2) trained leadership for the endemic confrontations 
with European and Indian power centers, and (3) a search for 
culture. "Comfort, decency and culture were as much a part 
of the Puritan scheme of things as Congregational churches 
and responsible government", Morison writes. "Common 
schools, compulsory education laws, grammar schools such as 
the Boston Latin, and the Cambridge printing press, 
belonged in the same category."! 



E. RELIGIOU S , ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL 
ir'ACTORS HAV]:! INTERACTi:^ 

Religious, economic, and cultural factors have inter- 



Samuel Eliot Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard 
(Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 4. 



54. 



acted over the centuries to stimulate the development of 
higher education in metropolitan Boston. While Harvard 
had an initial effect, it remained for 171 years the only 
college in Boston -- until the founding in 180 7 of Andover 
Newton Theological School. 

It was not until Boston's population exceeded 
130,000 that a second liberal arts college was founded in 
the area. A study of the establishment of Tufts in 1852 
provides a good insight into the dynamics of growth in 
Boston-area higher education. While non-sectarian. Tufts 
had its origins in the Unitarian Church and an 184 7 meeting 
of Universalists in New York City. As a nineteenth century 
historian wrote, "the selection of the present site of the 
college cannot be regarded as other than fortunate . . . 
because of its proximity to Boston, the most important 
literary center of the New World, where it may constantly 
feel the pulsations of every intellectual movement that 
takes place in the domain of thought... "1 

While Tufts, like Harvard, was in part the product of 
religion, it was also a response to the growing cultural 
environment. This environment was to foster the establish- 
ment and growth of many institutions which, in turn, would 
contribute to the growth of an environment in which even 
more institutions would share, contribute, and grow. 2 This 
process is one manifestation of the collegiate multiplier 
effect . 

The establishment of the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology in 1861 marks the beginning of economic influences 
in their scientific and formal sense — a complement to the 
predominantly "cultural" precedents of educational rationale. 
Evidence of this can be seen in the list of bodies that 
petitioned the legislature to approve the formation of an 



George Gary Bush , History of Higher Education in 
Massachusetts (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
1891) , p. 287 . 

2 

A list of these institutions appears on pages 60 and 
61 together with a historical list of graduate institutions 
established over the years by the major universities. 



institute of technology: 



Boston Society of Natural History 
Boston Board of Trade 

American Academy of Arts and Sciences 
Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics' 

Association 
New England Society for the Promotion 

of Manufactures and the Mechanical 

Arts 

New England State Teachers' Association 

The support of the Boston Board of Trade, the Massa- 
chusetts Charitable Mechanics' Association, and the New 
England Society for the Promotion of Manufactures and the 
Mechanical Arts has historical significance and deserves 
further treatment. 

The demand for scientific and engineering education 
was not accidental. The resource base in New England and 
the nineteenth century trends in sector development had 
an influence on education. Economist Robert W. Eisenmenger 
has described the resource-poor New England economy as 
"labor-intensive", requiring "... that a large amount of 
human effort be exerted on a small volume of raw materials 
to produce a high-value product". ^ 

Manufacturing industries in such an economy emphasize 
"process" over bulk of product. They require advanced 
technology and highly trained personnel. M.I.T. was incor- 
porated for "... aiding generally, by suitable means, the 
advancement, development, and practical application of 
science in connection with arts, agriculture, manufactures 
and commerce ".3 



Bush, op . cit . , p. 287. 
2 . 

Robert W. Eisenmenger, The Dynamics of Grov7th m New 
England's Economy, 1870-196^ (Middletown, Conn., Wesleyan 
University Press, 1967), p. 6 . Our analysis has benefited 
from the support of the First National Bank of Boston, and 
especially the comments of Vice President Dr. James M. 
Howell . 



Bush, op . cit ♦ , p. 288; from An Act to Inccrporate 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 



As textile, shoe, leather, and apparel manufacturing 
declined in New England, technology-dependent industry 
grew along with the service industries of insurance, 
finance, medical care, and research and education. Such 
employment opportunities attracted educated people who gave 
their children the desire and money for higher education. 
Jobs would be available for them when they graduated. More 
liberal arts institutions such as Boston College and Boston 
University were founded. They in turn were complemented by 
the junior colleges and professional schools (see list of 
schools in order of their founding at the end of this 
Appendix) . 

The Commonwealth has a labor-intensive economy that 
not only offers employment to graduates of its schools but 
also — by the same token -- supports the influx of educa- 
tional institutions . 

The three major dynamics of higher education growth — 
religious origins, economic influence, and cultural 
interaction — all work together in a mutually reinforcing 
way: 

1 . Religion 

Schools with religious purposes or origins have 
continued to reflect population trends : Andover Newton 
Theological School, Boston College, Episcopal Theological 
School, Hebrew College, Hellenic College, Pope John XXIII 
National Seminary, and Regis College, to name a few. 
Brandeis University, while non-sectarian, was founded by 
the American Jewish community. 

2 . Economics 

Beginning with M.I.T., many of the schools, 
colleges and universities have geared their programs in the 
practical arts to occupations and professions strongly rep- 
resented in the local economy. Such programs include 
electronics, engineering, health care, medical technology, 
and business administration. 

Conversely, the local economy has gathered strength 
from the skills, knowledge, and research of the universities. 
Indeed, the role of the university in stimulating the devel- 
opment of new industry and, particularly, of research-based 
enterprise is another enormously important aspect of the 
symbiotic relationship between the university and its 
community. The most familiar example is that of the spin- 
off company, which is created by the flow of people out of 
university laboratories into the entrepreneurial stream. 



This phenomenon represents a very important, but 
little documented, economic impact. Boston area spin-offs 
include such firms as Digital Equipment Corporation (from 
Lincoln Laboratory), EG£G inc. (from an M.I.T. academic 
department), Wang Laboratories Inc. (from Harvard), and 
Itek Corporation (from Boston University). A great part of 
the famous Route 128 business area was created essentially 
by a series of spin-offs. Another example containing many 
elements is in the aerospace industries where much of the 
requisite technology was developed in the universities and 
led to industrial expansion in new directions. 

3 . Culture 

Cultural influences were displayed in the origins 
of higher education. Such influences are inescapable and 
change with each generation. The high value placed on 
education in earlier days led to the establishment of 
Framingham State College (1839), Boston State College (1852), 
and Salem State College (1854). The same kind of influence 
has been manifested in the postwar development of junior 
colleges and more recently in the decision to create the new 
Boston campus of the University of Massachusetts. 

Other cultural influences are demonstrated in such 
institutions as the Massachusetts College of Art, Berklee 
College of Music, Boston Conservatory of Music, the New 
England Conservatory of Music, and Emerson College. 

Culture, of course, includes more than just the 
recorded cultural heritages that pass from one generation to 
the other in the mores, customs, and laws. It contains a 
strong element of engineering technology -- ways of enabling 
us humans to exert "leverage" on our problems. Social 
engineering is becoming almost as important as its scienti- 
fic progenitor. The Boston knowledge center has felt 
influences of this kind. A.nd it has contributed to them. 

One manifestation has been in the form of inter- 
actions between academic disciplines and social styles. The 
phenomenon is still in its adventuresome embryonic stages. 
But it shows great promise. An example is the Route 12 8 
developments. It and many of the so-called high-technology 
developments of the Boston area are in fact much more than 
just the innovative fruits of engineering science. They 
represent a long-standing but accelerated interaction between 
university traditions, entrepreneurship , and tax-encouraged 
financial resources -- all buttressed by the spirit of enter- 
prise to m.ake money through new modes of business. This 
symbiosis , which v;as enabled by the combination of academic 
initiative and federal funding of military and space 
research, has provoked considerable comment but not nearly 



58. 



enough research. It is there, however, as a monument to 
accidental genius , and one of the less observable impacts of 
the Boston knowledge center. Not beyond the bounds of 
possibility are interactions of this type in the field of 
civil resource management and social service — as the 
"university" grows beyond its walls to establish new inter- 
actions with its neighbors and constituencies near and far. 

The cultural symbiosis has perhaps already grown 
beyond its former meaning, too. Cultural offerings of the 
community encourage the development of educational institu- 
tions , which in turn add to the cultural environment. New 
elements are being added even today. It is possible that 
students are being attracted to Boston and New England 
because of an area catering to leisure-time interests of an 
increasingly affluent society. Boston/Cambridge has become 
America's "biggest college town". In recent years, enroll- 
ment has grown with the increasing interest in new kinds and 
forms of education -- particularly those of a continuing or 
"lifetime" nature, of which Northeastern University is a 
primary manifestation. 

It ic it 



Here we have tried to provide a perspective on the 
nature and causes of the educational wealth of Boston. The 
area has an economy that demands highly educated employees, 
thrives on technological research and development, and has 
the capacity to support dozens of educational institutions. 
The tendency of graduates and universities themselves to 
create off-shoot industries has resulted in a multiplier 
effect and the Route 12 8 development. The complementary 
nature of these processes is reflected in the growth of 
educational employment -- from 7.2% to 9.6% of the area's 
labor force since 1950, according to the U.S. Census. 



59 



THE BOSTON AREA'S HIGHER EDUCATIONAL CHRONOLOGY 

1636-1970 



16 36 Harvard University 

180 7 Andover Newton Theological School 

182 3 Massachusetts College of Pharmacy 

1839 Framingham State College 

1851 Lasell Junior College 

1852 Tufts University 
1852 Boston State College 
1854 Salem State College 

1861 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

1863 Boston College 

186 7 Boston Conservatory of Music 

1867 Episcopal Theological School 

1867 New England Conservatory of Music 

1869 Boston University 

1872 Garland Junior College 

1873 Massachusetts College of Art 
1875 Wellesley College 

1879 Curry College 

1879 Radcliffe College 

1880 Emerson College 

18 84 St. John's Seminary 
1889 Gordon College 
1889 Wheelock College 

1892 Chamberlayne Junior College 

1894 Massachusetts College of Optometry 

189 8 Northeastern University 

1899 Mount Ida Junior College 

1899 Simmons College 

1903 Fisher Junior College 

1904 Wentworth Institute 
1906 Suffolk University 

19 7 New England Institute of Anatomy, 

Sanitary Science and Embalming 

1908 Franklin Institute of Boston 
19 8 New England School of Law 

1909 Lesley College 

1911 Pine Manor Junior College 

1917 Bentley College 

1918 Eastern Nazarene College 

1919 Babson College 
1919 Emmanuel College 

1921 Hebrew College 

1922 Weston College School of Theology 



60 . 



19 2 2 Oblate College and Seminary 

1927 Regis College for Women 

19 34 Cambridge Junior College 

1937 Hellenic College 

19 39 Endicott Junior College 

1945 Berklee College of Music 

1946 Newton College of the Sacred Heart 
1946 Newton Junior College 

19 48 Brandeis University 

1948 Stonehill College 

19 50 Grahm Junior College 

19 51 Laboure Junior College 

19 56 Aquinas Junior College 

19 5 8 Quincy Junior College 

1959 Mount Alvernia College 

1961 Massachusetts Bay Community College 

196 2 Newbury Junior College 

196 3 University of Massachusetts Boston Campus 

1964 Pope John XXIII National Seminary 

19 6 5 North Shore Community College 

1966 Blue Hills Regional Technical Institute 

19 70 Middlesex Community College 

19 70 Wentworth College of Technology 



61. 



Figure A.l 

Growth of Higher Education in Greater Boston 
Founding of Colleges and Universities 1636-1972 

No. of Institutions 



60 



50 



40 



30 



20 



10 - 




1636 1800 20 40 60 80 1900 20 40 60 1972 



62. 



THE HISTORY OF GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 
IN THE EIGHT MAJOR UNIVERSITIES 
1782-1970 



1782 Harvard Medical School 

1816 Harvard Divinity School 

1817 Harvard Law School 
1867 Harvard Dental School 

186 7 Boston University School of Theology 

1869 Tufts Crane Theological School 

1872 Boston University School of Law 

1872 Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Science 

1873 Boston University School of Medicine 

1874 Boston University Graduate School of Arts and Science 

18 85 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Graduate Programs 
189 2 Tufts Graduate School of Arts and Science 

189 3 Tufts School of Medicine 

189 8 Northeastern University School of Law 

1899 Tufts School of Dental Medicine 

19 8 Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration 
1913 Boston College College of Business Administration 
1913 Boston University College of Business Administration 
19 20 Harvard Graduate School of Education 

1922 Harvard School of Public Health 

1923 Boston University School of Education 

1925 Boston College Graduate School of Arts and Science 

1927 Boston College School of Philosophy at Weston College 

1929 Boston College Law School 

19 3 3 Tufts Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy 

19 36 Harvard Graduate School of Design 

19 36 Boston College Graduate School of Social Work 

19 3 7 Harvard School of Government 

1940 Boston University College of Music 

1940 Boston University Graduate School of Social Work 

1940 Northeastern University Graduate Division, 
Arts and Science 

1946 Boston University School of Nursing 

1947 Boston University School of Public Relations and 

Communications 

1950 Northeastern University Graduate Division of Business 

Adm.inistration 

1950 Northeastern University Graduate Division 

of Engineering 

19 5 3 Brandeis Graduate School of Arts and Science 

19 5 3 Northeastern University Graduate Division of Education 

1954 Boston University School of Fine and Applied Arts 

1957 Boston College School of Management 



63. 



19 5 8 Northeastern University Graduate School of Arts 
and Science 

19 59 Brandeis Florence Heller Graduate School for Advanced 
Studies in Social Welfare 

19 6 2 Northeastern Graduate School of Pharmaceutical 
Sciences 

196 3 Boston University College of Engineering 

196 3 Boston University School of Graduate Dentistry 

196 3 Northeastern University Graduate School of 

Actuarial Science 
1965 Boston University Sargent College of Allied 

Health Professions 
1965 Boston University Metropolitan College 
1965 Northeastern University Graduate School of 

Professional Accounting 



64. 



BOSTON COLLEGE 
Newton, Massachusetts 



History and Purposes 

Founded in 1863, Boston College is one of the oldest 
Jesuit universities in the United States. Originally 
situated in Boston's South End to serve local young men, 
Boston College is today open to men and women of every 
background. Its scholarly pursuits span the entire 
spectrum of contemporary thought and interest. Most of 
its campus is in Newton, a suburban municipality in the 
western part of Metro Boston. 



Enrollment 

Current undergraduate enrollment totals about 8,000, 
of whom 1,000 are in the Evening College. In addition, 
some 3,000 students are doing graduate work in the graduate 
schools of arts and sciences, management, social work, and 
law. In 1972, more than 2,000 students attended regular 
sessions or special institutes in the Summer School. 

Although Massachusetts students continue to predominate 
at Boston College (58%), the university draws part of its 
student body from all over the United States and from almost 
40 foreign countries. 



Faculty and Staff 

The College faculty numbers 544 plus 36 full-time 
academic administrators . 



Schools and Programs 

In addition to graduate schools of Arts and Sciences 
(including Education and Nursing), Management, Social Work, 
and Law, Boston College consists of five undergraduate 
schools: Arts and Sciences, Management, Education, Nui-sing 
and the Evening College. A summer session offers a full 
range of undergraduate and graduate courses in major 
academic disciplines. 



Alumni 



Boston College has 51,UU8 living alumni, half of whom 
live in the Metro Boston area. The majority, about 34,000, 
are between 25 and 45 years old — reflecting the growth of 
the university since World War II. 



Governance 

The Board of Trustees of Boston College has the sole 
legal authority and responsibility for the governance of 
the university. In the earlier years of the College, the 
ultimate authority rested in the governing body of the 
Society of Jesus. Now the 35 member board, representing 
a broad cross-section of the community, enjoys the same 
autonomy as do the trustees of other private institutions . 



For more information 
Write or call: 



President J. Donald Monan , S.J. 
Boston College 

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02167 



617/969-0100 



BOSTON UNIVERSITY 
Boston, Massachusetts 



History and Purpose 

Boston University, established in 1869, is an independent 
non-sectarian institution offering undergraduate and graduate 
arts, science studies, and professional programs. Boston 
University is one of two major private educational institu- 
tions within the city of Boston itself. It is situated on 
a 48-acre campus along the south bank of the Charles River, 
with some its facilities such as the Medical School at the 
Medical Center in another part of the city. 



Enrollment 

Present enrollment is approximately 13,000 undergraduate 
and 4,000 graduate students. In addition, the university has 
a part-time student population of some 6,000. A relatively 
small proportion of the full-time student body comes from 
the Boston area, and about 2 5% from the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts. The rest of the students are drawn from all 
the states of the Union and a number of foreign countries. 



Faculty and Staff 

Boston University has a full-time faculty of about 1,20 
and a part-time faculty of about 1,00 0. In addition, the 
University has a staff of about 1,800 for administration and 
academic support. 



Schools and Programs 

In addition to the College of Liberal Arts and Graduate 
School, Boston University has the following specialized 
professional schools: Colleges of Business Administration 
and Engineering, the Schools of Education, Fine and Applied 
Arts, Law, Medicine, Nursing, Public Communication, Social 
Work, and Theology, and the Sargent College of Allied 
Health Professions. 

Special academic units complement the main program 
structure -- the Medical Center (medical school, dental 
school, hospital), and centers for African, Afro-American, 
and Latin American Development Studies. 



In Belgium, Italy, and West Germany, the university 
offers an Overseas Program to 800 students, primarily 
American military personnel. Four disciplines are included: 
business administration, education, engineering management, 
and industrial relations. 



Research 

The university has a $21 million annual research budget -- 
medical and allied health professions, graduate schools of 
arts and sciences, professional schools, and education. 

Alumni 

Boston University has one hundred thousand living 
alumni, half of them in New England, and thirty percent in 
the greater Boston area. 

Governance 

Boston University is governed by a president, three 
academic vice-presidents, three non-academic vice-presidents, 
a university council of the various college deans, a 
university senate composed of all members of the faculty. 
A senate council acts as the executive body of the faculty. 

The university has a board of 42 trustees which meets 
quarterly to receive reports from the president and other 
officers, approve appointments, programs, and financial 
plans, such as investment policy, property changes, and 
budget expenditure levels. 

For more information 

Write or call: 

President John R. Silber 

Boston University 

Boston, Massachusetts 02215 

617/353-2200 



68. 



BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY 
Waltham, Massachusetts 



History and Purpose 

Now in its 25th year, Brandeis University is a co- 
educational liberal arts university and the first Jewish- 
sponsored non-sectarian institution of higher learning in 
the United States. 



Enrollment 

In 19 72-7 3, Brandeis had 2,350 undergraduate students 
and 675 graduate students, with nearly equal numbers of men 
and women. In recent years, the number of foreign students 
has increased to about 200. Domestically, students come 
from 300 schools in more than M-0 states. Approximately 70 
percent of the student body lives on campus . About one- 
third of the undergraduates come from Massachusetts , about 
one-third from the New York metropolitan area, and one-third 
from the rest of the country and overseas. 

Faculty and Staff 

Largely focused on the liberal arts , the full-time 
faculty currently totals 335. The total staff of the 
University — faculty and non-faculty — numbers about 
1400 . 



Programs 

The College of Arts and Sciences offers a four-year 
undergraduate program leading to the Bachelor of Arts 
degree in the creative arts, humanities, science, and 
the social sciences. The Graduate School of Arts and 
Sciences offers programs of advanced studies in 21 fields. 

The Florence Heller Graduate School for Advanced 
Studies in Social Welfare is the University's first pro- 
fessional school and is a major training ground for social 
welfare policy makers and teachers. Additionally, the 
University offers its students and those at other American 
schools a one-semester program of study in Israel through 
the Jacob Hiatt Institute. 



69. 



other programs and activities supplement the basic 
academic functions of the University. Musical, theatrical 
and arts programs on campus are open to residents of the 
Boston area. 



Research 

From its beginning, Brandeis University has committed 
an important part of its academic energy to programs of 
research and scholarly inquiry. Among the most recent 
developments in research at the University was the creation 
of the Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center, 
a major facility dedicated to research, teaching and coordi- 
nating medically-oriented work in the life sciences. 

Alumni 

Since 194 8, Brandeis has graduated approximately 7,00 
students. Of this group, 1,200 are teaching, mostly in 
colleges and universities; 600 are practicing attorneys; 
more than 500 are physicians; 600 are social workers; and 
about 100 are members of the clergy. 



Governance 

The chief executive officer is the president, who is 
responsible for all University academic and administrative 
activity, and for the execution of policy established by the 
Board of Trustees. The 40-member Board of Trustees (increased 
to 50 beginning in 19 73-74) is the governing body of the 
Brandeis Corporation. The Board of Trustees includes three 
students, four faculty members, and the president of the 
National Alumni Association. Serving under the University 
president are five academic deans , and three non-academic 
vice-presidents. The faculty elects a Faculty Senate of 22 
members to advise the administration and to recommend 
policies and programs . 



For more information 
Write or call: 



Marver II. Bernstein, President 
Brandeis University 
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 

617/647-2201 



70. 



HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 



History and Purpose 

Harvard University is a private, non-profit, non- 
sectarian institution founded in 16 36. Its main campus 
is in Cambridge, with four of the graduate schools in 
Boston. Harvard College is the oldest college in the 
United States . Graduate education at Harvard began with 
the founding of the Harvard Medical School in 178 2. At 
present, the University includes ten coeducational graduate 
schools which are the Medical School, Divinity School, 
Law School, Dental School, Business Administration, 
Education, Public Health, Design, Government and the 
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. 



Enrollment 

Of the 15,00 full-time students at Harvard University, 
60% are enrolled in the graduate schools. Approximately 20% 
of these are Boston area residents. Harvard offers part-time 
instruction in arts and sciences through the University's 
Extension and the Summer School. About 9 5% of the Extension 
students and 2 3% of the Summer School students are from the 
Boston area. 



Faculty and Staff 

The University employs 8,823 people on a full-time 
basis. Of that total 3,700, including full-time faculty, 
have appointments from the Harvard Corporation. The 
remaining employees are in charge of the administrative 
and staff functions of the University. In addition, an 
estimated 2,000 people work in faculty and staff positions 
on a part-time basis. Approximately 90% of all Harvard 
employees are residents of the Boston area. 



Schools and Programs 

Harvard College and Radcliffe College are the under- 
graduate components of Harvard University. Although Harvard 
College is not coeducational, Radcliffe forms the women's 
undergraduate branch of. the University. 



The University library collection now includes over 
eight million volumes , of which about 3 million are located 
at Widener Library in Harvard Yard. Other related institu- 
tions are: the Museum of Comparative Zoology, the Institute 
of Plant Sciences, the Arnold Arboretum, the Astronomical 
Observatory, the William Hayes Fogg Art Museum, the Peabody 
Museum of Archeology, the Busch-Reisinger Museum of Germanic 
Culture, the Semitic Museum, the Dumbarton Oaks Research 
Library and Collection, the Centers for Hellenic Studies, 
Italian Renaissance Studies and East Asian Studies. 



Research 

Research is conducted throughout the University and is 
supported by grants, gifts, and government income. The 
principal area of research is medical. In 1972, $45,662,000 
was received for research from the U.S. Government and 48% 
of this money supported research in the Medical and Dental 
Schools, and the School of Public Health. The Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare, the National Science 
Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration are the prime government 
sources for research conducted in the University. 



Alumni 

Harvard has 156,000 alumni including 52,000 graduates 
of Harvard College and 104,000 graduates of the 10 profes- 
sional schools and Radcliffe College. Twenty-seven percent 
of the College alumni live in the Boston area. 



Governance 

Harvard University is governed by the Corporation and 
Board of Overseers. The Corporation consists of the 
President and Treasurer and five Fellows. The Board of 
Overseers consists of the President and Treasurer and 30 
persons elected by the alumni for six-year terms. The 
consent of the Board is required for certain acts of the 
Corporation. 



For more information 

Write or call : 

President Derek C. Bok 

Harvard University 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 



617/495-1000 



MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 



History and Purpose 

Chartered in 1861 as a Boston institute of science and 
industrial arts, M.I.T. moved across the Charles River to 
its present Cambridge home in 1916. Its founder, William 
Barton Rogers, had worked vigorously for many years to 
establish a new kind of school where young people "could 
learn exactly and thoroughly the fundamental principles of 
positive science, with their leading applications to the 
industrial arts." 

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a privately 
endowed and financed institution with its campus extending 
more than a mile along the Cambridge side of the river. 



Enrollment 

The M.I.T. Community includes 4,10 undergraduates and 
3,700 graduate students. Foreign students from 70 countries 
make up 18 percent of the student body. The Institute 
admits women, having presently about 46 of them as under- 
graduates and 36 as graduate students. 



Campuses 

In addition to its main campus in Cambridge, M.I.T. 
operates three research facilities in nearby towns: the 
Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington with substations in Westford, 
Tyngsboro, and Groton ; the George R. Wallace, Jr Astrophysical 
Observatory in Westford; and the 40 mev William H. Bates 
Linear Accelerator in Middleton, Massachusetts. 



Faculty and Staff 

Faculty members number 950, and supporting administra- 
tive, research and other staff on campus a further 2,200. 



Schools and Programs 

The Institute has broadened its curriculum and become 
quite well known in social sciences such as economics. The 
main emphasis continues to be on science and applied science 
such as engineering. 



73. 



M.I.T. has a total of 24 academic departments organized 
into the schools of architecture and planning, engineering, 
humanities and social sciences, management, and science. 
These departments offer undergraduate and graduate instruc- 
tion in some UO fields. A growing number of these are of 
an interdisciplinary nature. 

Supporting these programs is the M.I.T. library system 
of more than a million volumes , and a network of information 
processing services coordinated in the Information Processing 
Center . 



Research 

M.I.T. has grown into a major research center, with out- 
side funding in the current year totalling $187 million. The 
main campus has a number of research centers and facilities , 
including: the Center for Advanced Visual Studies, the Center 
for Advanced Engineering Study, the Center for Space Research, 
the Research Laboratory of Electronics , the Center for Mater- 
ials Science and Engineering, the Center for International 
Studies, the Operations Research Center, the Cancer Research 
Center, the Center for Life Sciences, the Center for Earth 
Sciences , the Center for Theoretical Physics , the Francis 
Bitter National Magnet Laboratory, the M.I.T. Nuclear Reactor, 
the High Voltage Research Laboratory, and Project MAC, a 
center for advanced computer research. In co-operation with 
Harvard University the Institute also operates the Joint 
Center for Urban Studies . 



Alumni 

Since its founding, M.I.T. has graduated more than 
6 8,000 students. Recent expansion is reflected in the fact 
that 59 ,000 of these alumni are still alive and living in 
various parts of the world. About 9,000 now live in the 
greater Boston area. 



Governance 

The governing body of the Institute is a board of 
trustees known as the Corporation, over which the Chairman 
presides. Its members include 80 distinguished leaders of 
science, engineering, industry, and education and (ex 
officio) the President, the Chancellor, and the Treasurer of 
the Corporation. 



The Institute's chief executive officer is the 
President. The Chancellor acts as a deputy to the President 



OR all matters. In addition, senior administrative officers 
of the Institute include the Provost, and eight Vice 
Presidents. The academic program is directed by the 
President, the Chancellor, the Provost, and five Deans, each 
responsible for the undergraduate and graduate programs in 
one of five academic Schools. 



For more information 

Write or call: 

President Jerome B. Wiesner 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02130 

617/253-1000 



75. 



NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY 
Boston, Massachusetts 



History and Purpose 

Northeastern University has pioneered in the development 
of both co-operative education and continuing education for 
adults. Beginning with evening courses in the YMCA in 189 8, 
Northeastern went on to establish its first day college in 
1909, and it has now become the largest private university 
in the United States in terms of total enrollment. 

In co-operative education, the student attends classes 
on campus during alternate quarterly terms, and works off 
campus at a program-related job in between. While he is at 
school, another student takes over his work. Northeastern 
officials have helped many other institutions in the United 
States and abroad fashion such career-oriented programs. 



Enrollment 

Current enrollment is 37,0 00 college-credit students: 
lM-,000 full-time undergraduates and 18 ,000 part-time. At 
the graduate level enrollment is 1,300 full-time and 4,000 
part-time . 



Campus 

Much of the program of the University is offered at 
its city campus on Huntington Avenue in Boston. In 
addition, the University has its Suburban Campus in Bur- 
lington, a Center for Continuing Education in Weston, a 
Center for Physical Education and Recreation Education in 
Ashland, and a Marine Science Institute in Nahant. In 
the evenings , the Boston Campus and Suburban Campus are 
fully occupied by part-time students, and six other 
facilities in Greater Boston are used by the University 
during weekday evenings to serve part-time students at 
convenient locations. 



Faculty and Staff 

Northeastern employs 1,680 people on a full-time basis -- 
670 faculty, 460 research, professional and administrative 
personnel, and 550 in support roles. A further 1,000 part-time 



76. 



faculty are employed in Boston and at the other locations 
where evening programs are presented. 

Schools and Programs 

Since its early emphasis on engineering (which was the 
basis of the first co-op program) , Northeastern has broadened 
its curriculum into liberal arts and the professional fields 
of business, education, pharmacy, and allied health pro- 
fessions, nursing, criminal justice, and recreation. The 
emphasis throughout has been on the many people in the local 
area whose families have not had many members attending 
university before. The co-operative program and the many 
offerings to students able to attend university only part- 
time have contributed to the general objective of the school 
to offer education in forms not duplicated by other 
institutions in Boston. 

Originally Northeastern was strictly a local institu- 
tion. As it has grown, it has attracted students from a 
wider area. But more than half of its full-time and almost 
all of its part-time students still come from the Boston 
area, 12% of them from the city itself. About one-third of 
the students receive financial aid. This is in addition 
to wages received directly from co-operative employers. 

Northeastern ' s Center for Continuing Education conducts 
seminars on community problems and offers state-of-the-art 
courses for the engineers and scientists in Boston's 
research-oriented industries. Henderson House is a live-in 
conference center in Weston. In-service training programs 
have been organized to meet the needs of public service 
employees in both state and Boston departments. 

In the past, the administration of co-operative educa- 
tion has been a unique feature of Northeastern; this 
service is now being made available to other colleges and 
universities throughout the country. The Institute for 
Off-Campus Experience and Co-operative Education has been 
created as a separate corporate entity which will purchase 
space and faculty time from Northeastern. Grants from the 
Braitmayer, Carnegie and Exxon Foundations are funding the 
start-up costs until the effort can become self-supporting 
with fees for its services. 



Alumni 

Living alumni of Northeastern University total 57,450. 
It is an impressive fact that 40,000 of these alumni live 
in the state of Massachusetts and that 22,000 reside in the 
Greater Boston area. 



77. 



Governance 



Northeastern ' s eight undergraduate colleges have 
considerable autonomy in conducting their academic programs. 
Their faculties also have general responsibility for the 
programs for part-time students offered by the University 
College and Lincoln College, as well as for graduate 
offerings. The Division of Co-operative Education serves 
all of the colleges and operates a center for research 
and consulting services for other institutions. On the 
graduate level there are eight graduate schools and a school 
of law. Overall academic policies are the responsibility 
of a faculty Senate with elected members from all colleges 
and schools . 

At the university level, the president is responsible 
to the Board of Trustees. 



For more information 

Write or call : 

President Asa S. Knowles 
Northeastern University 
Boston, Massachusetts 02115 

617/437-2100 



78. 



TUFTS UNIVERSITY 
Medford, Massachusetts 



History and Purpose 

Named for Charles Tufts , donor of its campus in the 
northwest Boston suburb of Medford, Tufts University was 
first chartered as a college in 1852. Adding a new engi- 
neering school in 1865 and a divinity school in 1869, the 
university has grown into a diversified academic center 
including medical and dental schools. A longstanding 
tradition of excellence, liberalism, and educational 
variety focuses on sound instruction and personal achieve- 
ment by each student. 



Enrollment 

Total university enrollment is now 5,312. Of this 
total, 80% are on the main campus in Medford. Two thousand 
of the 5,312 are graduate and professional students. 



Campuses 

The main Tufts campus consists of a hundred buildings 
on 150 acres of high land on the Medf ord-Somerville border 
near the Mystic River. On this campus are Tufts College 
(including liberal arts and engineering schools) , Jackson 
College, the College of Special Studies, and the Fletcher 
School of Law and Diplomacy (founded in 19 33 with a bequest 
by Austin B. Fletcher). 

In downtown Boston, as the educational units of the 
Tufts-New England Medical Center, are the Tufts University 
Schools of Medicine and Dental Medicine. The Stearns 
Medical Research Building houses research facilities and 
also the Tufts University-Boston School of Occupational 
Therapy. In addition to the schools, the Center includes a 
complex of teaching hospitals . 

Tufts programs are also offered overseas — in London, 
Paris, Tubingen, and West Africa. 



Faculty and Staff 

The university employs about 1,800 full-time faculty 



79 



and 1,400 part-time faculty and staff. 

Schools and Programs 

The Medford campus concentrates on undergraduate 
education 5 with three-quarters of its students in this 
category. Of the schools and colleges cited earlier in 
this account, the Graduate School of Arts and Science 
and the Fletcher School are the main graduate instruc- 
tional centers at Medford. 

In addition to the more traditional programs , a number 
of innovative undergraduate programs have been introduced. 
One example is Plans of Study, which allow students to 
tailor their own areas of concentration. Others are the 
College Within, through which students work under senior 
faculty direction on comprehensive individualized projects, 
and the Experimental College's seminars in a variety of 
topics not included in the standard curriculum. 

Research 

Associated with Tufts University are a number of 
special educational facilities and research centers. 
Specialized libraries complement the central support 
facilities of the Nils Yngve Wessell Library, serving both 
instructional and research support functions . 

The Medford campus houses the Lincoln Filene Center 
for Citizenship and Public Affairs. The Center sponsors 
educational research, engages in teacher and staff train- 
ing, and develops instructional resources and media. 

Within the College of Dental Medicine and the Tufts- 
New England Medical Center, research centers are devoted 
to advancing medical knowledge, such as cancer research 
and enzyme research. 

Alumni 

Of the 33,000 living Tufts alumni, 28% live in the 
Boston area. This group includes a wide variety of pro- 
fessionals. In fact, more than half of the dentists and 
about a third of the physicians in New England are Tufts 
professional school graduates. 



80. 



Governance 



The Trustees of Tufts College have the sole legal 
authority and responsibility for the governance of the 
university. This authority is all-inclusive, although 
faculty and students participate in policy determination 
to a considerable extent. 



For more information 

Write or call : 

President Burton C. Hallowell 

Tufts University 

Medford, Massachusetts 02155 

617/628-5000 



81. 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AT BOSTON 
Boston, Massachusetts 



History and Purpose 

The Boston campus was opened to students in 1965, under 
the impact of rising college enrollments on the part of 
Massachusetts students and the inability of the Commonwealth 
to meet this rising demand within then-present facilities. 
The university has made a commitment to provide residents 
of the Boston area, particularly those with low or moderate 
incomes , with a range and quality of educational opportunity 
equivalent to that available at Boston's private institutions -- 
and particularly to offer high-quality liberal arts and pre- 
professional education. 



Enrollment 

In September 1972, 5,662 students were enrolled at the 
Boston campus. Of those students, 36% were residents of 
the City of Boston, and 82% lived within a 15-mile radius, 
of the city. The university's admissions policy has 
generated a highly diverse student body, somewhat older 
than average, with a rising minority group component, and 
more than 10% Armed Services veterans. 



Faculty and Staff 

In September 1972, the University of Massachusetts/ 
Boston employed 350 faculty, 100 professional and admini- 
strative personnel, and a support staff of 200 persons. 

Schools and Programs 

The initial Boston programs concentrated on the liberal 
arts, and have resulted in the establishment of two liberal 
arts colleges. A third college -- The College of Public 
and Community Service — opened in the fall of 19 73, 
emphasizes pre-prof essional programs in public administration 
and community service. Preliminary planning is underway for 
the development of a fourth college, also with career- 
oriented program structure. In this way, UMass/Boston aims 
at a diversity of academic options for its students. 



82. 



Alumni 



Since its founding in 1965, UMass/Boston has graduated 
approximately 3,2 00 students. Almost 8 percent of the 
UMass/Boston alumni are currently living in the Boston 
Metropolitan Area, and 94 percent live in the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts. 



Governance 

UMass/Boston is one of the three campuses of the 
University of Massachusetts and is governed by a 25-member 
Board of Trustees. The Boston campus is operated under the 
same general structure as that governing the University of 
Massachusetts as a whole. Locally, the campus is directed 
by a Chancellor. 

UMass/Boston was established by Chapter 75 of the 
General Laws of Massachusetts, Section 2, as amended. Its 
enabling legislation states that it is "to provide, without 
discrimination, education programs, research, extension 
and continuing education services in the liberal arts and 
sciences and in the professions, and in those professional 
areas normally requiring either education beyond four years 
of undergraduate training or a basic or advanced degree 
beyond the bachelor's level..." 



For more information 

Write or call 

Dr. Carlo Golino 
Chancellor 

University of Massachusetts at Boston 
Boston, Massachusetts 02116 

617/287-1900 



83. 



APPENDIX B 



METHODOLOGY 



84. 



METHODOLOGY 



A. GENERAL APPROACH 

Although economic impact studies had been conducted 
before 19 71, they received additional support and guidance 
through a report published by the American Council on 
Education in that year: John Caffrey and Herbert H. Isaacs, 
Estimating the Impact of a College or University on the 
Local Economy" We have followed the suggestions of this 
document , amended them in some ways , and profited from our 
experience in applying them at the University of Pittsburgh 
in the spring of 19 72. We have also benefited from reading 
other economic impact studies. 

The keynote of the approach is balance and objecti- 
vity. Under the Caf f rey-Isaacs philosophy, the student is 
advised to deal with both positive and negative aspects of 
economic impact. As a result, he achieves greater credi- 
bility than might obtain if only the positive aspects of 
impact were discussed. This principle has been adhered to 
in this project. However, it is also true that many aspects 
of university impact have not been dealt with -- such as 
those regarding communication with neighbors , expansion 
plans that pre-empt property nearby , participation in 
community projects aligned with community (not university) 
goals, and so on. We have, on the other hand, tried to make 
a balanced account of the impacts on the community as these 
are manifested in cash flows . 

Figure B.l illustrates diagrammatically , the principal 
elements in the study's conceptual scheme. It does not 
reflect the varying quality of data used nor the important 
omissions from what is primarily a "cash flow" analysis. 
Among the university contributions to the community not fully 
explored in the broader social context are: (1) effects on 
local culture and the quality of life in Boston and else- 
where; (2) practical value of education to the students who 
receive it, in psychic and life-income terms; (3) impact of 
Boston research centers on man's knowledge of himself and 
his environments; (4) details on the impact of health science 
education and practice on local health care delivery; and 
(5) impact of knowledge-based industries on the New England 
economy. To get the highest quality data, university 
records have been searched diligently and many questions 
asked of faculty, staff and students. Still, surveys have 
to be interpreted. Judgment enters into statistics -- and 
is influenced by the results of similar studies done in 
other places on other schools. Confidence levels are, how- 



85. 



Figure B.l 
Main Economic Impact Study Components 



REVENUES 



Student 
Tuition 
£ Fee s 




Private 
Gifts £ 
Endowment 




Government 
Grants £ 
Pro j ect s 




Auxiliary £ 
Service 
Programs 
























SOCIAL COSTS 






COMMUNITY 


GAINS 



Tax Losses 

from 
Exemptions 



Net Added 
Municipal 
Services to 
Institutions 



Extra Social 
Costs of 
Student Pop'n 



Alteration 
of 

Ne ighborhoods 




Gains to 

Human 

Capital 



Lower State 

Education 

Costs 



Jobs £ Taxes 
from New 
Businesses 



Communitv 
Services (e.g. 
health, legal) 



Local 
Purchases 



Faculty 
£ Staff 
Expenditures 



Student 
Expenditures 



Visitors 
Expenditures 



CASH FLOWS 



86. 



ever, high enough to support the informational objectives of 
the project. 



B. SOURCES OF DATA 

The study used several sources of data: 

1. University records. 

2. University reports to public agencies, such 
as the U.S. Office of Education and local 
governments . 

3. Civic records of assessment, taxes, and 
federal statistics on family expenditure, 
income, and retail sales. 

4. Surveys of faculty, staff, students, and 
visitors designed and carried out specially 
for this project. 

5. Opinions and judgments of project personnel 
and people in the community on measurement 
of variables not amenable to sampling or 
available from previous research. 

6 . Computer-based statistics from the First 
National Bank of Boston, plus the support 
of bank personnel in local economic 
documents . 

7. Documents and assistance from the New England 
Board of Higher Education, especially its 
booklet, FACTS 1972-73 . 

C. DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS 

The data processing of the survey information was 
carried out at the Computing Center of Boston University, 
under the direction of Sylvia Fleisch -- who gave continual 
support in computational suggestions and interpretation of 
results. Datatext and SPSS were the packages used to array 
responses , compute arithmetic means , medians , and standard 
deviations . 

Cut-off points were assigned to many of the responses 
in the staff and student surveys, but in fact made almost 
no difference in the final results. As in other surveys of 
this kind , when people were asked to estimate amounts of 



87. 



money spent per period on various items, their multi -peaked 
distributions made interpretation more difficult than one 
would ideally like. In such cases, the consultants' judg- 
ment and the experience of other projects were applied to 
interpret the computations. One problem was, of course, to 
differentiate non-responses and zero responses in the 
process of weighting the sample results for estimation of 
the values of the universes. For example, if 50% of the 
students fail to respond to a question about their bank 
accounts , do we conclude that half of the student body do 
not have such accounts? 

The survey policy was that all queries would be anony- 
mous and confidential. This is, we feel, a necessary 
condition in projects of this type in the university 
community. Under such a survey rule, we could not follow up 
the non-respondents or check responses with the people who 
made them. However, there was a minimum of nonsense and 
frivolity, which in turn is partly a tribute to the interest 
that economic impact studies have for many people. 



D. INCORPORATION OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS 

Although the study was launched with the intent to 
cover only the eight major universities of the Greater Boston 
area, a decision was made later to include the smaller 
colleges and universities of the region. The study area, 
for this purpose as well as for the main effort, was as the 
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area of Boston as defined 
by the U.S. Census. This is a rather peculiar urban area, 
not following county lines as such similar areas do in parts 
of the country where county lines are judged to be more 
relevant to socio-economic variances. 

The other 57 colleges and universities of the area were 
invited to submit the general financial and student data to 
the central project group, and to contribute to the project 
in return for receiving progress and final reports. A sub- 
stantial minority of the institutions cooperated. Their 
returns were extrapolated — mainly by use of enrollment 
figures -- into estimates for the whole group. 

E. THE IMPORTANCE OF COOPERATION 

Many people worked together with the most gratifying 
harmony to produce this study. We have acknowledged some of 
these in the Preface and in notes in the text. This, 
however, is only part of the story. 

The main element of cooperation in an economic impact 



88 



study is from the specific individuals possessing needed 
information: faculty and staff who reply to questionnaires; 
students who submit to interviews and tell about their 
expenditure patterns ; parents of students who reply to 
questions about their visits ; the part-time students who 
submit to sidewalk interviews ; the officials in the insti- 
tutions who work to gather university information for 
their representatives on the steering committee. All 
these ingredients are necessary. In this project they were 
brought together and reinforced by the efforts of all the 
members of the steering committee. They were dedicated to 
their task. They received strong support from their 
respective Presidents. The report is the product of this 
cooperative effort. 



89.